THE FUTURE OF THE NAT MC RATIONALISATION FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

[POSTMAN]

THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL MAIL CENTRE RATIONALISATION FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT


Dear Jeremy

THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL MAIL CENTRE RATIONALISATION FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

I fully appreciate that you are relatively new to the business and certainly new to the processes of the above mentioned agreement, equally from a practical sense this is also the first time that I have been through the process. However, I do have some historical context which may be useful to you and I therefore am sharing that with you both below and in the attached annexes to this open letter.

At the CWU 2011 Annual Conference Motion 51 (copy attached as annex A) was debated and carried. The motion was prompted by people that had experienced the process and felt that rather than an agreement that was designed to consider potential ideas with no preconceived outcome, it had evolved to be perceived as a process that effectively walks the CWU through to a totally preconceived outcome.

As a consequence of the policy of no further agreement to any Mail Centre reviews discussion took place and resulted in a National Deployment Group meeting to move the issue forward. That meeting produced a resolution that commissioned Steve Cameron and I to agree and produce a document that would strengthen the process and allay the CWU’s prevailing cynicism (copy of that NDG resolution is attached as annex B).

Those subsequent talks produced a Joint Statement (copy attached as annex C), which clearly I personally promoted as a genuine change in approach that was notionally different and significant enough to enable talks to reconvene on this aspect of transformation. There were still those who were cynical that the Joint Statement represented nothing other than the opportunity for the business to announce the consultations on Cambridge, Gloucester and Shrewsbury, with the word consultation translating into they will definitely close.

Of course the proof of the pudding would be in the eating and having now tasted the process as it were I have to agree that the key aspect of the agreement, the one that suggests that the final decisions are not made until the latter stages of the process, is in my opinion totally insincere. Against that backdrop I shall be reporting to the CWU Executive that I do not believe that the Cameron/Pullinger statement has resolved the Union policy set in Motion 51 and that we should not be agreeing any further Mail Centre closures until we have a new resolution which ensures we do indeed have a credible process.

Turning to the National Processing Group (NPG) of the 7th November 2012, and may I say from the outset that our conversations and indeed the wider context that we are jointly giving to the National Processing Group meeting is most welcome. However, the section dealing with the Mail Centre consultations was in my opinion shambolic, insincere, at times insulting and certainly out with the spirit and intent of the attached documentation. Clearly there were elements of your managerial team who grew increasingly frustrated that we should have the audacity to express a view on where we are. To the point that it was emphasised to me that this is a consultation process only, as opposed I assume to a mutual interest consensus building process.

You spoke to me prior to the meeting in regard to your desire for a professional and respectful meeting which avoided any potential for a ‘slanging match’ scenario. I was very proud of the CWU Divisional leads who certainly embraced that approach. However, it was unfortunate that members of your team had clearly not got the memo as it were. Whilst the CWU listened in full to your regional presentations prior to responding, members of your team constantly cut across the CWU Divisional leads as they tried to respond. It does not speak well for the so called ‘new relationship’ if we have to start legislating for general good manners.

From a substance point of view it was evident to me that the ‘Joint Statement’ which sought to strengthen the credibility of this process has failed and that the concept of equal status in respect of people issues, quality of service, performance and finances is indeed a myth. I conclude that the pound note is the strategic god of the managerial approach and that the other elements mentioned pale into insignificance. I clearly do not say that in respect of MTSF terms etc. but rather in the context of those four issues shaping industrial strategy.

I left the NPG meeting bitterly disappointed, angry and feeling foolish that I had genuinely believed we had strengthened the process only to be firmly told by your team in front of my Divisional colleagues, that certainly the National Union role, if not the total role of the Union, in this process is nothing more than the role of the lackey. I have to inform you that I do not accept the mentality evident in your team that my Union’s role is effectively no more than one to help you deploy what you say, regardless of how we and our members feel about it or more importantly disagree with it.

Upon reflection however I have considered that maybe this could present an opportunity, an opportunity to take a breath and reconsider what I now believe to be a flawed processing plan. It is now evident to me that the business transformation plans have actually failed to deliver a transformed business excellently positioned for the future.

The design of our Mail Centre Network, the internal design of our Mail Centres and the automation in which the Royal Mail leadership have chosen to invest all the money available is in my humble opinion totally predicated on declining ‘Letter’ traffic and therefore inconsistent with the changing traffic demographics of the postal industry. That failure to anticipate those changes of declining letters and increasing packets is fundamental to our current problems and I fail to see how blindly pursuing the deployment of a clearly challenged plan is in anyone’s interest, other than those hell bent on perhaps trying to balance the books for privatisation or the satisfaction of the regulator.

Our processing function is in urgent need of reflection, the workplan is not being adhered to, standard operating procedures are not being applied, WCM has created unnecessary costs and kit & equipment anarchy which further complicates standard procedures. Processing is the only function without a modern revisions procedure which is why we have the excessive use of agency and casual resource. Remaining Mail Centres from previous consultations are failing and work is arriving later and later in Delivery Offices, frustrating the ability of that function to deliver on duty configurations consistent with the wider BT Agreement.

Your team announced at the NPG their intention to open consultations on the Ipswich and Portsmouth Mail Centres and then expected me to hold that information for three months, whilst readily admitting that your local managers would be working on the proposal. Apart from that being totally unacceptable to me I believe it is in direct conflict with the agreement. If your managerial teams are working on the future of a Mail Centre three months in advance of the CWU getting involved then that explains why this process is so flawed, you have already made your minds up at 6.1 and any sense that it is a theoretical rather than an actual proposal is clearly false.

You suggest that you now wish to bring these consultations forward well I ask you what difference does it make. The business has decided to close them and our ability to influence that decision is clearly nil in your application of the current agreement, so in my opinion the CWU will have to find other ways to influence the debate.

In closing I hope that you will consider putting on hold your current plans until we have been able to jointly reconsider the relevance of the current plan in the context of the changing postal industry. You have raised the issue of personal integrity and mine will not allow me to continue supporting an insincere process. That is also why this is an open letter and an honest reflection of my position so that no one will be able to accuse me speaking with a forked tongue.

The CWU will cooperate with change but not the wrong change based on the desperate throws of a failing plan simply to accommodate savings at the expense CWU member’s livelihoods and the public we serve.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely


TERRY PULLINGER
ASSISTANT SECRETARY

[silly suffolk]

the pennys dropped

[The Backbone]

Only about 7 mailcentres too late to be fair...

[Martin Walsh]

Lets be honest , Royal Mail know exactly the names of the mail centres they want to close and have done for a number of years. A leaked document under the ACE project named the end state for mail centres and every mail centre closure apart from East London since then was on this list.

Royal Mail do a comphebsive business case which goes through the Executive and Holding boards. The CWU are never going to stop a closure when the bean counters have already endorsed it. The only things the union get from the process is a longer phasing plan , an MPU or some protection for the people.

The reason both the national union and Royal Mail pass it down to Divisonal or regional review is it is easier for other to be blamed for a clousure then those nationally.

The sooner we all realise that fact the better we can deal with it. Sadly if your mail centre is proposed for closure it will close but the timing of that closure must ensure you protect the members in that. Location.

[dodger162]

How many MCs will remain open?

[rainbowwarrior72]

It would be interesting to see how many Mail Centres and where they will be in the "new" Royal Mail. I agree with Dingo maybe Billy and Dave should get off their arse from their SW19 HQ and come and tell us what we've got to look forward. Especially now they are raising the Subs "Again" in the new year.

[rainbowwarrior72]

Dingo Was Jubilee Mail Centre on that leaked document cos I've got a feeling that we may be closed in a few years due to space issues and also our close proximity to Greenford Mail Centre that could take in TW if it happened

[dodger162]

Yes Jubilee and Greenford is an anomaly in that they are very close together but no they will both remain as not only are they super MCs but work has been transferred in. Also Jubilee has iLSMs and these were only installed in safe MCs.

[fishtank]

Yes Jubilee and Greenford is an anomaly in that they are very close together but no they will both remain as not only are they super MCs but work has been transferred in. Also Jubilee has iLSMs and these were only installed in safe MCs.

I would imagine the only MC's that are truly safe in the long term are those that can handle the potential increase in parcel traffic and perhaps have the capacity for automated parcel sorting.
Note the use of the word "parcel"...i'm modernising see.

[clashcityrocker]

Note the use of the word "parcel"...i'm modernising see.

Hoodwinked I think was the term used previously.

[silly suffolk]

Lets be honest , Royal Mail know exactly the names of the mail centres they want to close and have done for a number of years. A leaked document under the ACE project named the end state for mail centres and every mail centre closure apart from East London since then was on this list.

Royal Mail do a comphebsive business case which goes through the Executive and Holding boards. The CWU are never going to stop a closure when the bean counters have already endorsed it. The only things the union get from the process is a longer phasing plan , an MPU or some protection for the people.

The reason both the national union and Royal Mail pass it down to Divisonal or regional review is it is easier for other to be blamed for a clousure then those nationally.

The sooner we all realise that fact the better we can deal with it. Sadly if your mail centre is proposed for closure it will close but the timing of that closure must ensure you protect the members in that. Location.

lets be honest the cwu's performance over mail centre closures has been little short of pathetic. if royal mail has always had a wish list of mail centres to close the union should have put this in the public domain, so all interested parties could have been prepared for the fight instead of being picked off one by one. instead of informing people of what marvellous v/r terms and travelling money is on offer, [percieved by some] perhaps the leadership could have fought to save the mail centre structure as it stood instead of rubber stamping a lot of their members futures on the scrap heap.

[SpacePhoenix]

Also Jubilee has iLSMs and these were only installed in safe MCs.

Doesn't mean sh*t. POMC has got an iLSM AFAIK and it's still up for closure. Any MC or MPU can be emptied of machines over the course of a weekend. The ability of a MC to handle the 80odd and 100odd york double-stackers will probably be factored in, though again, it probably doesn't take too many days to fit any given MC with the larger bay doors needed for a double stacker.

[dodger162]

Yes Silly Suffolk you have a point. This is a very difficult process and I think should have been handled differently. RM know exactly the end state but the agreement from CWU prevents this from being known. Thankfully the process is nearly finished, i think there may only be 2 more after Ipswich and Portsmouth. The whole process has taken far too long. The CWU role is to ensure that everyone who want to stay gets a reasonable job offer and that seems to have work pretty well. I think the end state is around 36 MCs

[silly suffolk]

Yes Silly Suffolk you have a point. This is a very difficult process and I think should have been handled differently. RM know exactly the end state but the agreement from CWU prevents this from being known. Thankfully the process is nearly finished, i think there may only be 2 more after Ipswich and Portsmouth. The whole process has taken far too long. The CWU role is to ensure that everyone who want to stay gets a reasonable job offer and that seems to have work pretty well. I think the end state is around 36 MCs

so when i go round and tell my mates who i have worked with over 30 years who are working in the mail centre because theyve been knackered out on deliverys that we are reaching end state in the closure plan and they can drive to chelmsford everyday with 3 years travelling money, or leave with 2 years pay, i don't think they'll be chuffed. the reality is the new super offices will be staffed by a large amount of casual labour. if the membership had known of the wipe out of mail centres surely they would have supported their colleagues at the threatened sites. its all very depressing, and reminds me of the distruction of the mining industry but without the fight.

[rainbowwarrior72]

The problem at Jubilee MC is lack of space just got too much work in a Mail Centre designed for 2 Post Codes. Even with the GU concentration last year we struggled and this year Christmas planning is shambolic at least