the demise of seniority

[Martin Walsh]

The business transformation agreement has a principle of no full timer has to become part time and no part timer has to reduce their hours.

My understanding of your situration and it is my opinion as I don't have all the facts of your situration but I assume the following

1 There is a resign of full time duty holders and they select the jobs they wish in seniority order.

2 The full time duties which still remain vacant after the full time contract have signed happen to be CDV driving duties.

3 All the part time contract holders who have expressed their intention to go full time will in seniority order sign for the vacant duties. However if you can not drive then you can not sign for a CDV driving duty. Of course the way forward does not record driving as a specialist duty but that was agreed in 2000 and did not realise 10 years later that the Business Transformation agreement that we would have CDVs and that the CDV guidelines require at least one indivdual to be able to drive.

4 If driving was not considered to be a required skill why couldn't non drivers sign for firm van duties ?

Now if the above is true then I cannot understand your view that you have been let down , but maybe if the above is not reprsentive of what has happened in your unit please explain more.

[non-driver7]

The business transformation agreement has a principle of no full timer has to become part time and no part timer has to reduce their hours.

My understanding of your situration and it is my opinion as I don't have all the facts of your situration but I assume the following

1 There is a resign of full time duty holders and they select the jobs they wish in seniority order.

2 The full time duties which still remain vacant after the full time contract have signed happen to be CDV driving duties.

3 All the part time contract holders who have expressed their intention to go full time will in seniority order sign for the vacant duties. However if you can not drive then you can not sign for a CDV driving duty. Of course the way forward does not record driving as a specialist duty but that was agreed in 2000 and did not realise 10 years later that the Business Transformation agreement that we would have CDVs and that the CDV guidelines require at least one indivdual to be able to drive.

4 If driving was not considered to be a required skill why couldn't non drivers sign for firm van duties ?

Now if the above is true then I cannot understand your view that you have been let down , but maybe if the above is not reprsentive of what has happened in your unit please explain more.

So seniority is no longer then its all about skills for the job end of discussion then.
Cheers for the insight.

[fishtank]

2 The full time duties which still remain vacant after the full time contract have signed happen to be CDV driving duties.

Why would a CDV driving duty have to be designated full-time?
What is stopping a part-time driver picking the CDV duty and the indoor element moving to the more senior non-driver wishing to progress to full-time?
This would protect the principle of seniority.
It isn't rocket science.
One minute seniority is the bollocks and the next management are allowed to stomp all over it basically because they are too lazy to put in a bit of effort when creating duty plans.

[Martin Walsh]

Ever Since MTSF was introduced which included pay protection and MTSF 2 seniority has always been under threat. When there are no issues relating to pay protection then seniority should apply but there has always been a criteria which states that you have to be able to perform a duty which you signed for, so you cannot sign for a driving duty when you don't drive and you cannot sign for a walk sequencing job if you cannot do nights.

Now fish myself and yourself was not involved in the revison discussions and the basis which the office agreed that the CDVs are full time but it does seem non driver contacted headquarters and the area rep put this to a further vote which the membership accepted.

Now I do not know enough details to understand whether that was the right decision or no and neither do most on this site , but I can see the logic as some offices want to maximise full time job opportunities even if they are CDV driving jobs.

[fishtank]

I think the problem has arisen because there is a difficulty in defining a driving duty when working in pairs.
If both partners are drivers does this mean that both duties are driving duties?
Obviously not as only one can drive at a time so it is clearly wrong for an office to designate all CDV duties as driving duties and therefore unjustly block a non-drivers opportunity to progress to full-time.

[Martin Walsh]

Fish maybe I am reading it different from you , as I took the assumption that all the full time staff had signed for their duties in seniority order and had take the CDV asst duty non driving duty and therefore the only duties left for signing was the drving CDV duty. You can't have a CDV without a driver.

Therefore when it came to those who wanted to become full time from the part timers the only full time duties left was drving CDV duties.

Now if you told a full timer that he had to drive a CDV and then allow a part timer to become full time as an CDV asst then this would equally cause arguments.

Clearly the local rep , the area rep and the members who voted on it know why the CDV duties were full time and we can only speculate.

[fishtank]

I cannot see any possible reason under any circumstance where a CDV duty has to be full-time.
I think the driving issue is a red herring thrown in simply because the manager wants all his/her full-time staff to be drivers.
I know of no agreement or guidance that supports the need for full-time CDV drivers so where the rep and area rep are coming from,as you say only they will know.
It is another nail in the coffin of seniority though,i hope that is remembered when they finally get round to burying it.

[Cut Off King]

DINGO wrote ;

Of course the way forward does not record driving as a specialist duty but that was agreed in 2000

Where was it agreed in 2000 that driving was now a specialist duty, and why wasn't seniority protected by the CWU

[Martin Walsh]

Seniority has been under attack for decades.

In fact one of the reasons why the way forward was opposed is that it put in a new criteria for resigns which reduce the ability to have an office revision and allowed indivduals to squat on a duty if it had not significantly changed.

In addition when MTSF 2 was agreed it changed seniority again as indivduals in receipt of an allowance could sign first for the same shift allowance duties and therefore seniority was undone again. In fact in mail centre land very few full office resigns now ever take place as indivduals do not want to voluntary opt for a resign as they then would not qualify for pay protection.

Moreover when you have a delivery resign you first agree the number of duties full time deliveries and firm drives , part time , any indoor jobs. The skilled jobs are normally signed by the most suitable senior indivdual , the full time delivery duties are signed in seniority order and guess what the firm drives are signed in seniority order by drivers and part time duties are signed by part timers !

If there are still full time driving duties available or CDC driving jobs as the other CDC job as been signed in seniority order by a full time person these are offered in seniority to any part timers who wish to become full time the only criteria is that they have to be able to do the duty which is vacant and sadly if that is a drive then they would have to be able to drive.

In many offices the vacant jobs have been non driving jobs but obviously in this case it was not.


If you really want the union to protect seniority you would not want the union to go and have a row with management over the fact that the cwu want non drivers to sign for driving duties I could hear royal mail laughing to the press already.

[hubbahubba]

there has always been a criteria which states that you have to be able to perform a duty which you signed for

Not at my mailcentre.In the last resign ALL processing duties were seniority based,including mech.In fact,anyone who signed out of a mech duty was told they may have to cover a mech job for up to 6 months,to give RM time to train anybody who signed for such a duty!

[non-driver7]

I have heard a rumour that the planners have made a cock up, they haven't accounted for some of the indoor work, I don't understand it. But I bet the hours go to the face that fits. DOM and me have never seen eye to eye. That's why he wants all drivers.

[Martin Walsh]

If there was a mistake on the amount of indoor hours and that meant that there were now additional non driving duties for you to get a full time job then your rep should ensure that it is done on a seniority basis.It should not be down to your Dom to decide. Good Luck !

[dvbuk55]

When we originally embarked on CDV - or P&L as it is more commonly known, people who could drive but had a walking duty was removed from those duties to drive a van, both parties had to be drivers and both had to be full time, according to the managers and of course with the CWU saying move forward directly. Now that was in 2008 and we all know what has happened since, one can be full time and not be a driver and one can be a driver and part time and the reason is no one has been recruited on a full time contract and so the goalposts are moved time and time again. The non-driver could be a double prepper for example the part timer would come in later and load the vehicle with packets or whatever. That of course was not the original state of affairs and so it is more than possible for a non driver to be partnered by a driving part timer.

It begs the question as to what would happen if the driver partner lost his licence and there was a vehicle spare without a driver would the full time driver be found a position that did not require a driving skill

[Cut Off King]

No more please, my heads spinning,

Lets just face the fact that RM have won, and we have lost.

[non-driver7]

No more please, my heads spinning,

Lets just face the fact that RM have won, and we have lost.

The fact is royal mail have won your absolutely right, my union rep is a good friend of mine known him for 10 years. Because I have caused so much s**t in my office the tension is unbearable. But to be honest if I knew this was going to happen I would not have gone on strike at all. Been worthless for me