New Attendance Procedure Branch Ballot: Vote NO

[banddy]

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we all know that royal mail managers base their decisions on the time element of the old agreement, not the each case on it's merits principal.
that is to say, they issue the stage warnings for going over the 14 days or 4 absences (e.g stage1) without really taking into consideration, what caused the absence.

the important part of the "new" agreement is the 6month issue. instead of the 6months being a "rolling" 6month period, after 6months with no absence, you would be off the attendence procedure [or put down to the stage below, i.e put from stage 2 to stage 1 or removed from the procedure altogether].

as for "disability" related absences, they would come under the "equality act" legislation anyway, so if a disabled person is being treated less favourably or being picked on because of their disability, they are protected by the equality act anyway.

as for "accidents" on duty. i believe that lots of accidents at work are not reported. maybe this agreement will help people to actually report any accidents. it's not only the accident, it's the "injury sustained as a result of carrying out the employers business".
if people are going to be singled out for having an accident, i reckon this could result in more people who suffer the accident, to seek legal remedy and sue the employer for breaching the health and safety regulations. royal mail will not want that.

so, all in all. i reckon we should - VOTE YES

[fishtank]

as for "disability" related absences, they would come under the "equality act" legislation anyway, so if a disabled person is being treated less favourably or being picked on because of their disability, they are protected by the equality act anyway.

Your argument for the failure of the New Attendance Procedure to address the issues of disability is that it doesn't need to because they have the equality act to fall back on?
That's piss poor banddy.

What you're saying is that rather than the CWU bothering to represent them they should employ the services of a solicitor because every time they get picked on they will have to take RM to court citing the equality act.

Why bother with the subs then?

[dvbuk55]

Why bother with the subs then?

Well someone has to pay for the prawn sarnies, champagne and untaken holidays The CWU of today reminds me of a hospital they opened in Australia, a member of the government was visiting and was told there was 2500 beds, 1500 doctors, 3200 nurses, 1250 ancilliary staff, 750 admin staff and 110 ambulances each manned by two crew members and the government bod said "how many patients do you have?" - and the chief administrator said "Patients? We haven't time to be fecking about with patients".

[banddy]

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

very good point.

in my opinion, this new agreement is a step forward and is an improvement.
having the 6month point at a fixed point is far better than what we have at present - (a rolling 6month period -within any 12 month period)

it gives people a better chance to get on top of the situation if they can get by the 6month fixed period, otherwise it can be hanging over your head
for between 12 to 18months, which is a hellluva long time.

disability etc is dealt with under the equality act.
drink and drugs are dealt with under the drugs and alcohol policy
there is also the IHR policy and appeal for long term sick/dismissal

so, all in all - i would recommend we VOTE YES

[banddy]

as for "disability" related absences, they would come under the "equality act" legislation anyway, so if a disabled person is being treated less favourably or being picked on because of their disability, they are protected by the equality act anyway.

Your argument for the failure of the New Attendance Procedure to address the issues of disability is that it doesn't need to because they have the equality act to fall back on?
That's piss poor banddy.

What you're saying is that rather than the CWU bothering to represent them they should employ the services of a solicitor because every time they get picked on they will have to take RM to court citing the equality act.

Why bother with the subs then?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no, that's not what i am saying.
you are putting the cart before the horse.
the equality act is "protection" in statute for all disabled people and their relatives.

at the various stages of the new attendance procedure, your rep should be able to advise and refer the manager to the equality act.
should legal representation be required, then, presumably, the cwu would fund this

[fishtank]

no, that's not what i am saying.
you are putting the cart before the horse.
the equality act is "protection" in statute for all disabled people and their relatives.

at the various stages of the new attendance procedure, your rep should be able to advise and refer the manager to the equality act.
should legal representation be required, then, presumably, the cwu would fund this

There's either protection within the attendance procedure for disabled employees or there isn't.
In this case there isn't.
Your defence for that is there doesn't need to be,they have the equality act.
I suspect that's a line spun to you at a meeting banndy,i doubt you even believe it.

Telling members to rely on statutory protection is a suicide note for a union.
Statutory protection is the minimum protection available to people.
Union's are supposed to negotiate better than statutory terms and conditions otherwise they cease to have any purpose.

There is such a thing as Statutory Redundancy Pay but we don't expect our members to leave under those terms,that's why we negotiated MTSF,why do we expect our disabled members to put up with the bare minimum statutory protection when it comes to the Attendance Procedure?

[banddy]

no, that's not what i am saying.
you are putting the cart before the horse.
the equality act is "protection" in statute for all disabled people and their relatives.

at the various stages of the new attendance procedure, your rep should be able to advise and refer the manager to the equality act.
should legal representation be required, then, presumably, the cwu would fund this

There's either protection within the attendance procedure for disabled employees or there isn't.
In this case there isn't.
Your defence for that is there doesn't need to be,they have the equality act.
I suspect that's a line spun to you at a meeting banndy,i doubt you even believe it.

Telling members to rely on statutory protection is a suicide note for a union.
Statutory protection is the minimum protection available to people.
Union's are supposed to negotiate better than statutory terms and conditions otherwise they cease to have any purpose.

There is such a thing as Statutory Redundancy Pay but we don't expect our members to leave under those terms,that's why we negotiated MTSF,why do we expect our disabled members to put up with the bare minimum statutory protection when it comes to the Attendance Procedure?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't and we shouldn't.

both "agreements" end up being based on interpretation [as all CWU/RM agreements end up being].

the present agreement is already abused or "misinterpreted" by RM managers.
look at the cases where people with cancer, asthma, diabetes, epilepsy etc, have been given stage warnings and some forced to take IHR.

the stage 1's are handed out as a matter of course if people go over the 14days or 4 absence [either or] without RM taking into account of what the actual ailment is.
the stage 2's are the same [and everybody knows it]
the whole shebang is constantly abused by RM managers.

the real problem is as the earlier poster said, is the failure to secure appeals at stage 1 or stage 2.

would royal mail agree to that - of course they would not.
how do we achieve that?
strike?
that's not gonna happen.

as i said, it is my belief that removing the rolling 6month period and replacing it with a fixed 6month period, is certainly a step in the right direction.


a disability is definitive, but the list of disabilities is not. ultimately, it is up to a tribunal to decide whether or not a person is disabled, but a good rep, should push for the manager to view cases where the person is potentially classed as disabled - sympathetically, and reps should garner as much evidence as possible to qualify their belief when dealing with such cases. it's not up to managers to decide who is classed as having a disability, but it is up to the cwu[reps] to make damn sure that there is enough evidence to support a belief that there may be a disability classification, and unless the manager looks on the matter sympathetically, the cwu would be advocating that that the royal mail/manager could potentially end up being cited in a law suit for breach of the equality act.
roayl mail/managers think nothing of breaking agreements everyday, they will not wish to be cited as breaking laws such as the equality act, H&S etc.

the present agreement certainly is not "working" to our advantage, that's for sure.
the reality is, when people do have no option but to seek legal remedy through tribunals or courts, they are more often than not, very complex and very expensive affairs and even if the union/member win their tribunal, in the case of dismissals, there is no compulsion for royal mail to take any employee who has been dismissed, back into their emploment.

so for me, fixing the goalposts at 6months is a major step forward.

[General Mannerheim]

as for "disability" related absences, they would come under the "equality act" legislation anyway, so if a disabled person is being treated less favourably or being picked on because of their disability, they are protected by the equality act anyway.

Your argument for the failure of the New Attendance Procedure to address the issues of disability is that it doesn't need to because they have the equality act to fall back on?
That's piss poor banddy.

What you're saying is that rather than the CWU bothering to represent them they should employ the services of a solicitor because every time they get picked on they will have to take RM to court citing the equality act.

Why bother with the subs then?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no, that's not what i am saying.
you are putting the cart before the horse.
the equality act is "protection" in statute for all disabled people and their relatives.

at the various stages of the new attendance procedure, your rep should be able to advise and refer the manager to the equality act.
should legal representation be required, then, presumably, the cwu would fund this

They are supposed to do that now.
The very Equality Act that your so fond of already lays the procedure down for Royal Mail and reps,the fact is they ignore it,far easier to get crips and wasters off on IHR and hey presto the `new` attendance even let's them do it after 22 weeks now.Wonderful.
And if you think the CWU will offer legal representation your sadly wrong and that's before all the new fee's comes into place at tribunals.

[billyboy123]

first of all thanks midge for ur input on here. why am i not surprised 99% of the new agreement could of been written by royal mail themselves the exctivive of our union are s**t the sooner they are voted out the better lets get someone who are going to fight for the members not YES MEN

[Martin Walsh]

If we are honest the current attendance procedure neither works for employess as there are two many on the procedure and a lot of others who play the system ie know providing they do not trgger the procedure they can have some time off. In addition to Royal Mail whilst they have a lot of people on the procudre very few actual get dismissed and sick levels do not decrease.

If you doubt this look at the following figures for the South East Region and this is simliar to other regions.This was from the start of the financial year until week 36 and covers the following postcodes AL/EN , HA/UB , HP, LU/SG , NW London , SL, WD , WC , W1 , W2-14 , SE1 -28, SW1-20 , BN , CT, DA, ME, RH, TN, CR, BR, GU,KT,SM and TN.

1st stage warning 4580 triggered - 1925 issued with a stage - 1451 not issued - number actioned 3376. Number of outstanding after 14 days and not heard 1207.

2nd stage warnings 1193 triggered - 540 issued with a stage 2 - 292 not issued with a stage - number actioned 832. number of outstanding after 14 days and not actioned 361.

Dimissal stage - 195 triggered - 15 dismissed - 42 not dismissed - 57 actioned - number of cases outstanding after 28 days and not issued 138 .

So you can see that whilst a lot of people are on the procdeure in partiuclar the first stage , few get dismissed and it does not seem to reduce the sick levels. On top of this managers are clearly not acting on the stages they should have and probaly leaving in the drawer.

In terms of getting an appeal at each stage we have been trying to get this since in the early 90s without any success. The question is are we better off rejecting a better procdure in partiuclar the time spent on each stage in order to attempt to get something which have never been able to achieve. Bearing in mind that more members are not on the procudure and unlikely to support a call for strike action to achieve an appeal.

[dvbuk55]

Why would we need to go on strike? We have an attendance procedure, on offer is nothing better, we just say NO - I do realise that word is an anathema to the CWU but really it is an option...............remember the drugs advert JUST SAY NO!

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk if you say no what procdure do you think we will have ? the old one without any appeals , no procudure what Royal Mail want to do or will the new procdure come in anyway.

Not that I think it will be voted out, based on Branch meetings I think it will go through quite easily.

[fishtank]

I think reps are more wary of the various guides and the link up between Royal Mail's unagreed sick pay policy and the agreement....rather than the agreement itself.
That said i agree with dingo.
I expect it to pretty much sail through.

[dvbuk55]

Dvbuk if you say no what procdure do you think we will have ? the old one without any appeals , no procudure what Royal Mail want to do or will the new procdure come in anyway.

Not that I think it will be voted out, based on Branch meetings I think it will go through quite easily.

Yes me too - but maybe it should have gone to a member ballot because we don't seem to have had anything from Branch asking what we think. As I recall we have appeal currently at stage 3 and under the new procedure we have an appeal at ............stage 3, to say RM won't agree a stage appeal process is simply not good enough. As for bringing it in under EA is that not what the union is for rather than agreeing to something because RM won't accept it. As for being passed easily............so was BT2010 that didn't make it a good agreement though..........and yes the members did vote for it........ after Billy Smarts travelling circus.

[Cut Off King]

Dvbuk if you say no what procdure do you think we will have ? the old one without any appeals , no procudure what Royal Mail want to do or will the new procdure come in anyway.

Not that I think it will be voted out, based on Branch meetings I think it will go through quite easily.

after Billy Smarts travelling circus.

Me thinks thee to be over generous with the word "Smarts"