Delivery Revisions : Unagreed Policy Change

[fishtank]

No. 687/12 Ref: 230.03 Date: 7th September 2012

To: Branches with POSTAL Members

Dear Colleague

Delivery Revisions – Unagreed Policy Change

Further to LTB 649/12 circulated on the 29th August 2012 we have now discovered that one week later Royal Mail has yet again unilaterally implemented policy to undermine a Joint Statement. This can only be described as splay of arrogance and contempt for the Union and its members.

This latest disregard for national agreements and Joint Statements is designed to undermine and nullify the BT 2010 agreement, our revision checklist, Joint Statements, and joint training, basically making them all redundant. This will inevitably lead to a breakdown in relationships and confidence at all levels and will undoubtedly result in a string of disagreements and the collapse of the agreed revision process unless it is formally withdrawn forthwith.

Policy change has been implemented that dictates to managers that offices have to model future indoor duty structures at 100BSI performance and adjust start times accordingly. This is basically what the disagreement was about that LTB 649/12 dealt with, or so we thought.

This unagreed policy now means that if a unit has agreed a revision structure based on 75BSI starting at 06.00 they will not be able to implement it, even though they have abided by the national agreement and national Joint Statement on setting indoor performance. This unagreed policy apparently coming from Regional level instructs managers (even though it’s supposed to be a local agreement) to assume that the unit’s performance will improve from 75 to 100 within a predetermined period of time and this must be built into the revision. Therefore their start time will need to be retarded to 07.00 for example instead of the agreed 06.00. This is done on the assumption that when the unit reaches 100BSI no dead time will be in the operation and the start time will not have to be changed. Managers are insisting this must be built into local agreements and is being called a ‘flight path’ which is something not discussed or agreed with the CWU. The other thing that this unagreed policy does is drive later start times, also contrary to the national agreement.

This unagreed policy brings us back to the same position we were in prior to the recent Joint Statement contained in LTB 649/12 which was designed to address the problem and help move revisions forward. The problem then was that managers were instructed to plan at 100BSI and backfill with pressure / SA overtime etc which they could then take out as they saw fit and also enabled them to introduce longer predetermined delivery spans (4hrs minimum), thus optimising the outdoor to reduce headcount, this has now been reintroduced but in a different guise, and yet again contrary to previous Joint Statements and the national agreement.






The consequence of this unagreed policy means the weekly resourcing meetings will never have a chance of working because it will not be possible to flex up above the model week based on your agreed performance, as the model week is being calculated at the predetermined level of 100BSI and not the 75BSI you have agreed. It also removes the possibility of being able to discuss what you will do in the unit if your performance does improve over time. Under normal circumstances if you had improved performance you would discuss, in line with the IR Framework what to do about the hours no longer required, with this there is no discussion because the hours are being removed at the managers’ whim.

This unagreed policy is just another spin on deceptively planning the indoor at 100BSI which has not been agreed with the CWU and is in complete contrast to the Joint Statement on setting indoor performance.

It is absolutely clear that this unagreed policy is designed to undermine the whole delivery revision process, national agreements and Joint Statements. Branches and Representatives are therefore requested to inform their respective managers that unless they are prepared to remain completely within the bounds of all national agreements and Joint Statements you will be immediately withdrawing from all revision activity and registering unilateral disagreement over the abrogation of national agreements and Joint Statements.

It is important for all of our members to understand that this problem has come about because of the unacceptable behaviour of Royal Mail management and that it is they who are in breach of the BT2010 agreement including the associated Joint Statements. The CWU will only engage in discussions where these agreements are being followed.

Please ensure that this is brought to the attention of all of our members explaining to them that it is not something we want to do but we are left with no choice due to the unacceptable actions of Royal Mail.

Any enquiries to Bob Gibson’s Office, quoting reference 230.03
Email address: hnutley@cwu.org

Yours sincerely

Bob Gibson
CWU Assistant Secretary

[Straight4ward]

I'm curious - what can they actually do if you fail to acheive the target?

[music4essex]

Take you down the NCI procedure, my dom has tried this twice on posties including me,

basically trying to get rid of you

Essex mum

[fishtank]

I'm curious - what can they actually do if you fail to acheive the target?

Making the target isn't the issue Straightforward.
Royal Mail are well aware that these targets are arbitrary and rarely met in the real sense that an office could genuinely claim to be operating comfortably at 100BSI.
EP is artificially boosted in so many ways in a D.O. that the actual performance of the OPG's is probably the least significant factor.
The real issue is the removal of hours based on this artificial figure and what now seems to be the case...the premature removal of hours and change of start times based on the prediction of the meeting of an artificial fantasy figure.

[hans solo]

so what do we do then
i know lets talk billy and more talk billy then guess what take it right up
members treated like crap yet again
unagreed whats to unagree they are dictating yet again
lets do what were told billy dont rock our (your) boat billy

[Lincox]

A ballott of the membership might be a starting point

[Cut Off King]

A ballott of the membership might be a starting point

Whats the point of a ballot ?

We've been there before.

We walk, we get RM on the ropes , then Billy waves a piece of paper saying "peace in our time" we go back & RM do as they wish with the CWU's " joint statement" backing

How many times are the CWU going to fall for this.

[POSTMAN]

Royal Mail has yet again unilaterally implemented policy to undermine a Joint Statement.

f**k off! You're boring the s**t out of me now.