New Attendance Procedure Branch Ballot: Vote NO

[Midge]

The New Attendance Procedure:

Why Your Branch Should Vote ‘NO’


National Briefings: What Is Going On?

CWU activists should note with alarm the fact that the recent National Briefing on the proposed new Attendance Procedure was called at such short notice. After two years of negotiations on the new agreement, full-time senior Reps due to attend the Briefing were given two working days from a Friday afternoon “eleventh hour” Letter To Branches to prepare for a National Briefing the next Wednesday. Just two days to read and digest a new agreement and 12 additional documents that come with it. This is simply unacceptable.

National Briefings were promoted as an extension of decision-making and democracy between Conferences. If so, they must do more than pay lip-service to involvement. They must allow and encourage fully informed debate and proper consideration of the issues. They should not just be a “rubber-stamping” exercise for new agreements. Annual Conference has limited time to discuss and debate, but National Briefings at short notice give us even less.

A number of reps and Branches at the National Briefing called for more time to understand and debate what was to be voted on, so the Postal Executive has now extended the deadline from their original plan of 19th December to 18th January. But the original intention seems clear: rush it through over Christmas when everyone is too busy to look too closely at the details.

Only through the active involvement and input of reps that experience life on the front line in the workplace can we ensure national agreements are fit for purpose. Branches should arrange meetings to consult with their unit reps and activist members on the proposed new agreement and involve them in deciding how the Branch will vote in the Branch Ballot.

The Agreement: Who needs “Guides”?

LTB 854 says “the new agreement and the associated guides…represent a substantial improvement” on the old Attendance Procedure and management’s unagreed rogue policies.

At the National Briefing Ray Ellis, the National Officer who negotiated the proposed agreement, made it expressly clear that Branches will be voting to accept not just the new agreement itself, but also the 12 other more detailed Guides, together as one package deal.

Most of these Guides actually contain these words:

“In the case of any inconsistency between this supporting guide and the Attendance Agreement the terms of the Agreement must take precedence.”

But according to the LTB these Guides are meant to be “supporting documentation”. They will be presented to managers and our Reps as telling them what the Agreement means in practise.

If they are meant to support the correct implementation of the new Agreement, then how could they ever be allowed to be “inconsistent” with that Agreement? The fact is that if we agree the content of these Guides we are also agreeing that there are no inconsistencies between them and the Agreement.

We don’t need an Agreement that has list of twelve separate Guides that put a spin on it, or reinterpret the words actually in the Agreement. What we need is a comprehensive Agreement in the first place!

Stoppage of Sick Pay ended?
Pull the other one!

The LTB makes a lot of “the cessation of stoppage of sick pay without good reason and appropriate notification”. It claims that the Agreement will bring “an end to random stoppages of pay during absence”. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But what the actual words of the new Agreement do say are:

“Employees will receive sick pay in line with the provisions set out in the Sick Pay policy”
(Page 1 of the proposed Agreement, bullet point 8)

If you look for a copy of this Sick Pay Policy in the list of Guides attached to the LTB, you won’t find it. It is the only one that is specifically referred to as being agreed as part of the new Agreement, and it isn’t even added as a supplement. It is exactly this self-same Sick Pay Policy that Royal Mail has been using to justify the stoppage of sick pay! In the current version of this policy it states:

• “The business must be satisfied that an employee’s absence is necessary and due to genuine illness

• The business reserves the right to refuse sick pay if an absence is due to, or is aggravated by, causes within the employee’s control, or if the employee has neglected instructions given by a Doctor

• An absent employee shall remain at their normal home address (other than to receive in-patient treatment) unless they have consent of their line or local personnel manager

• Employees who are sick immediately before they are due to go on holiday must confirm to their Line Manager that they are going on holiday on the due date (unless sick absence continues and the employee remains at home)”

(Sick Pay & Conditions Policy, 29 March 2012)

And we are expected to accept that this previously unagreed policy is now part and parcel of a new agreed national Attendance Agreement! No thank you!

All that the CWU negotiators have done is agree when Royal Mail can claim they have “good reason” to justify the stoppage of pay. And in future now we wouldn’t be able to challenge it: we will have agreed to it! In future it wouldn’t be “random”, but under the specific terms of this agreement. Sick Pay should not be stopped at all, whether on a “random” basis or on a basis that is planned and has been agreed with the CWU!

Plus, now you will have to stay at home if you are sick, even if you have booked and paid for a holiday with the family and are fit enough to travel but not go to work. This has never been agreed before, but it would be under this new agreement.
Still No Appeal at Stage 1 or 2!

Despite it being a long-standing CWU Conference policy, there is still no appeal against the issuing of a Stage 1 or a Stage 2 Warning in the proposed new Agreement. Why is this? Ray Ellis simply tells us that “Royal Mail won’t agree to it”. So, that’s it then, is it? We just forget about it?

No! That’s just not good enough. We should not be agreeing a new Attendance Procedure that doesn’t include appeals at Stage 1 and Stage 2. Full stop.

Accidents on Duty are Discounted?
Not any more they aren’t…

The words in the proposed new Agreement are the same as the old one: “Absences which result from accidents on duty will normally be discounted”.

But the supposedly “supporting” Guide ‘How to treat absences due to accidents at work’ that is to be agreed as well goes on to concentrate in great detail on how management can actually justify including these absences!

This includes “where the accident has been caused by the employee’s own negligence or if the number of accidents have reached an unacceptable level”, or if “the length of an absence related to an accident at work is deemed to be unreasonable”.

Exactly who is to decide whether the employee has been negligent and caused their accident? Who is to decide how many accidents someone has to have before this number is unacceptable? Who is to deem the length of an absence to be unreasonable? Their line manager.

What if the employee disputes the allegation that they are to blame for their own accident? How do they challenge the accident being included when the nationally agreed “Guidance” document specifically gives their manager the green light to do so? The words of the new Agreement are not supported by this “Guidance”, they are undermined by it!

Oh, and by the way: this is the only “Guide” that doesn’t actually include anywhere the words “in the case of any inconsistency between this supporting guide and the Attendance Agreement the terms of the Agreement must take precedence.” The words of this “Guide” are gospel.

The “Guide” actually re-writes the vague terms of the national Agreement to say what Royal Mail has wanted it to say all along. It actually spells out how to include accidents on duty, and this time with the CWU’s blessing!

(Oh, and by the way, there’s still no appeal against the issuing of a Stage 1 or Stage 2 warning…)

Disability-Related Absences: Still Discounted?

The words in the proposed new Agreement state “Absences arising from disability will normally be discounted”. Why this has been changed from “absences related to disability will normally be discounted” which is what the current agreement says is not explained. Let us assume there is no difference between the two. But what does the ‘supporting' Guide on this subject add to the new Agreement?

“Having sought advice from Occupational Health Service reports and HR Advice Centre and where it is justified to do so e.g. an employee’s disability related absences reach an unacceptable level, the manager should advise them in writing that any future absences may be counted.”

So, the manager making the decision has to ask ATOS, and another manager in Human Resources to check if they agree that including disability-related absences is “justified”. Again, what has been agreed in the Guide that elaborates on the words in the Agreement simply gives in to what Royal Mail has been trying to get all along.

(Oh, and remember there’s still no appeal against the issuing of a Stage 1 or Stage 2 Warning…)

But isn’t the new Agreement much improved? What about the shorter Stage Warnings?

In the proposed new Agreement, the trigger points for Stage 1 remain as 4 absences or 14 days in 12 months, but the trigger points for Stage 2 and Stage 3 have moved. The proposed new trigger points for Stage 2 and Stage 3 are “2 absences or 10 days in the next 6 month period”, rather than “2 absences within 6 months of each other or a total of 10 days in the next 12 months”.

This is undoubtedly better, but it has come at the high price of giving in to Royal Mail on other important issues. These improvements on how long Stage Warnings would last, come at the price of making it easier for Royal Mail to give you a Stage Warning in the first place.

The Devil is in the detail

Truly, the phrase “the Devil is in the detail” has never been more appropriate for a proposed new National Agreement. But this time the devilish detail isn’t actually in the Agreement! It is all left to the supposedly “supporting documentation”!

Space does not allow everything to be put into this leaflet. Take a long hard, proper look at the full detail of this Agreement and all the additional “Guides” before you decide whether to support it or not.

What is the Alternative?

At the National Briefing, Ray Ellis told those who criticised the proposed new National Agreement, that it might not be perfect, but it is the best they can negotiate. He also asked ‘What is the Alternative?’

Well, Ray, the alternative is to stick with the current Attendance Procedure and keep challenging and fighting all of Royal Mail’s attempts to change it, water it down, misinterpret and abuse it. We do already have any Attendance Procedure agreement. We don’t need to agree a new one right now ‘at all costs’. Better still, involve our members at the sharp end in a fight to get a new National Attendance Agreement is fit for purpose; that it fully defends our members’ job security. That it is better all round, not just better in some parts, worse in others.

Vote ‘NO’ to the new Attendance Procedure package deal!

Download and print this leaflet for your reps and activists to read:

CWU_AttendanceAgreement_VoteNo_V2.pdf

CWU_AttendanceAgreement_VoteNo_V2.doc

[daveyeff]

according to our branch there was definately going to be the right to appeal a stage one or two.,,,,,, now it would seem it was all ballcocks. why am i not surprised. rapists and murderers have the right to appeal.,,,not royal mail workers though. vote no.

[pinstripe]

" The business reserves the right to refuse sick pay if an absence is due to, or is aggravated by, causes within the employee’s control, or if the employee has neglected instructions given by a Doctor"

So, your doctor tells you "no work for 3 weeks"
ATOS and your DOM tell you "Light duties", you do said light duties and 'aggravate' your condition. Who has neglected the instructions given by your doctor?

This is even more loosely worded than BT2010 and we know how RM interpret that.

[fishtank]

This is even more loosely worded than BT2010 and we know how RM interpret that.

Those exact words have been part of Royal Mail's unagreed sick pay policy for years.
They have been applying them and will continue to apply them whether the new agreement is accepted or not.

The question facing reps is whether we legitimise their policy by incorporating it into an agreed Attendance Policy.

[spen]

another deal of the century

[houseoflords]

I dont trust Royal Mail and I dont trust the Union either both Liars and untrustworthy.....

[steven100]

CWU must have the worse negiotating team ever. So the score must be RM 5 V CWU 0.......at least.

[peterloo]

CWU must have the worse negiotating team ever. So the score must be RM 5 V CWU 0.......at least.

If Royal Mail had their way we would not have an attendance procedure at all and we would not get sick pay either. That is where we would of been years ago without the 5 nil down CWU #realitycheck

[fishtank]

#realitycheck

Twitter is second on the left,just past the door marked Facebook.

[houseoflords]

I voted No No No No

[fishtank]

I voted No No No No

Multiple voting is a blatant breach of union rules.
You could lose your credentials for that.

[Budfrog]

I must say that I have never been a great fan of the current attendance procedure as it is too easily manipulated by management and a very small percentage of staff.

There have been instances where a manager makes the decision not to issue a stage warning for genuine reasons only to have pressure brought to bear to do so by his manager and we all know that you can take a fair amount of 'illness' without ever reaching a warning if you are cute enough.

It's a system that needs a radical overhaul in my opinion but this needs to be accomplished with full agreement of CWU.

[dvbuk55]

CWU must have the worse negiotating team ever. So the score must be RM 5 V CWU 0.......at least.

If Royal Mail had their way we would not have an attendance procedure at all and we would not get sick pay either. That is where we would of been years ago without the 5 nil down CWU #realitycheck

Well there is already an attendance procedure and if it works then why take the plunge into the unknown like we did with BT2010 - so I would vote no and hope that there is more rounds of talks to incorporate appeals. What the union are saying AGAIN is that's the best we can get so we should vote yes.

[DirtyHarry]

For God's sakes, VOTE NO.
If Royal Mail want this, then you know, just know, it will not be in your best interest.
In fact, a more blatant attempt to manufacture a tool that makes dismissing full-time employees easier, would be hard to imagine.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

What the union are saying AGAIN is that's the best we can get so we should vote yes.

This stance by the Union is one I never really understand, unless they are trying to spin something.

I don't vote on an agreement or on a pay rise based on if we could get a bigger rise or a better agreement, or if its the best we can get. I vote acceptance or non-acceptance based on whether I think the offer in front of me is good or not. I hope everyone else does the same.

If we start voting to accept agreements based on "its the best we could get - even if its not a good agreement" then we may as well rip up (figuratively) the values we signed up to when we joined a Union.