Re-sign advice - seniority giving way to part timers

[Jenlo]

I wonder if anyone can give me some advice, my husband is a full time postman with 8 years service and his division are currently undergoing a full re-sign. When they voted for the re-sign thy were told that no jobs would be ring fenced for part timers as they had previously been (my husband is currently a reserve as each time a job becomes available it is made into a part time position, so people who had been in the business months get a regular job with rolling day off and long weekend every 6 weeks where my husband gets put on a different job each day and has no idea when his days off are) but since the re-sign was agreed the goalposts have been changed and they have been told that only so many full time position are available and these will be signed for in order of seniority, then there will be a cut off and they will then go to the part timers who then get to pick, and only once they have all chosen will it come back to the rest of the full timers including my husband. He has been told that there will probably be no full times jobs left and he will have to change division. It seems completely wrong that for the first say 35 people it goes in order of seniority then part timers who have been there less time than my husband, some only a few months get to sign for a job while the rest of the full timers have to accept he dregs of what is left.
My husband has spoken to his union rep but he says that its 'just the way things are done'. Can anyone advise if this is happening all over the country or just in their office and also if my husband has any rights to appeal this?
Thankyou in advance.

[clashcityrocker]

What do you mean - change division?

[mandelsons_toenail]

We are going to disagreement over it

Its wrong
Same boat for me

[dvbuk55]

Well this is the most comprehensive change I have ever seen and there are pecularities depending on what the new revision throws up on how many hours are needed to actually run the DO. In some cases the part time element has been in for a good number of years and so that situation would be different to an office with little staff turnover with a predominantly full time element. The ruling is that nationally the FT/PT split will be 75/25, though nobody knows what that is exactly, so it is possible that people may be moved and as long as the agreement is maintained there is little the union can do. With P&L there is a strong possibility that some jobs may go - tell him to ask if there is a buy down available, in which case he will get a lump sum, become a part timer and then a get a pick.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

What do you mean - change division?

As a non postie she won't know the lingo - I guess she means office or Post Code.

[haddie]

I am union rep at my DO we have just gone through revision and voted 1 in 6 . this now includes ALL workers including reserves.we have also gained 1 full time position. Even I was taken aback when planner fed in info and told me I had won a watch as the model week I had chosen had thrown this up. I did not expect the planner to admit this and give us more hours

[fishtank]

I am union rep at my DO we have just gone through revision and voted 1 in 6.

Why?
We had an agreement for 1 in 4 for all including reserves.

[DB1100]

It's the opposite at our corrupt salt mine,full time jobs and part time jobs are designated and all the full timers get their pick first us part timers have only the dregs to pick from no matter how long we have been there.

[clashcityrocker]

I am union rep at my DO we have just gone through revision and voted 1 in 6.

Why?
We had an agreement for 1 in 4 for all including reserves.

The wording of the agreement is for "the majority".

[fishtank]

I am union rep at my DO we have just gone through revision and voted 1 in 6.

Why?
We had an agreement for 1 in 4 for all including reserves.

The wording of the agreement is for "the majority".

I specifically remember arguing that point at the time of the agreement and was told by senior reps and officials that i was being pedantic and the spirit of the agreement was that all staff who wanted 1 in 4 would get 1 in 4 and the reason "majority" was used was to allow individuals who wanted to stay on other duty patterns the ability to do so.It was certainly not to be used as a "get out clause" in offices that were blackmailed by the threat of headcount reduction or full-time position reduction or in other offices where the majority got what they wanted at the expense of others.
Are you telling me that i was lied to?

[clashcityrocker]

I think the spirit of the agreement is for 1 in 4.
I don't think anyone envisaged the "interpretation" currently being used. It doesn't mention people getting no Saturdays.
The wording is too vague.
What is "the majority" - 90-10 or 51-49 or what?

[dvbuk55]

I am union rep at my DO we have just gone through revision and voted 1 in 6.

Why?
We had an agreement for 1 in 4 for all including reserves.

The wording of the agreement is for "the majority".

I specifically remember arguing that point at the time of the agreement and was told by senior reps and officials that i was being pedantic and the spirit of the agreement was that all staff who wanted 1 in 4 would get 1 in 4 and the reason "majority" was used was to allow individuals who wanted to stay on other duty patterns the ability to do so.It was certainly not to be used as a "get out clause" in offices that were blackmailed by the threat of headcount reduction or full-time position reduction or in other offices where the majority got what they wanted at the expense of others.
Are you telling me that i was lied to?

Not lied to.............exactly........it's just that the words are the words and will be interpreted in a different way depending on which position best suits RM. It's a wonderful thing this "spirit of the agreement" because like the holy ghost, it doesn't really exist. BT 2010 was a bridge too far in terms of deliveries.

Our agreement gave all full timers 1 in 3 Saturdays and all part timers no Saturdays and that split will be around 60/40 so it is the majority but the winners and losers raises it's ugly head again.

[mandelsons_toenail]

so as usual no one can answer

why do pt ers get their own dedicated duty and senior ft ers get shafted

why is seniority not used?

if you number 1 you pick first number 2 then picks regardless of ft/pt

pisses everyone off and the union have no answer

[fishtank]

There is no answer because there is no answer.
If duties are put forward for a repick in a delivery element only format,then a full seniority repick will take place bearing in mind that park&loop duties require at least one driver per pair and obviously a non driver cannot pick a driving duty.
If duties are put forward for a repick with both indoor and outdoor elements already combined then a separate pot for full-time and part-time duties will have to be created.
Both of these options still conform to the test of seniority and both of them have been used for years in Royal Mail.

Personally i prefer the first option and that's what our office has always done as it's closer to a true reflection of what seniority is supposed to be about.

[POSTMAN]

It was certainly not to be used as a "get out clause" in offices that were blackmailed by the threat of headcount reduction or full-time position reduction

But,is there a possibility that the above 'could' happen if the office wants 1 in 4 or another duty set and not the 1 in 6?