R M National Attendance Procedure : Branch Ballot Result

[Martin Walsh]

it is a disgrace that over 20 odd Branch's never voted and they should be written to and asked why and if it's not a good enough answer then the Branch should have their rebate withheld and consideration on being merged with another branch.

The Branch's which have voted should, be asked how they came to their decision ? How many did what they should have done consulted all the offices within their branch prior to voting ??

[makingsounds]

The rep's in my Branch had the full document for a month to look over and discuss with their members, we had a good debate on the subject at our monthly meeting and only one voted in favour. Trouble was 7 rep's hadn't read the document or discussed it in their offices, it was left to the Area rep and Branch Secretary to explain a lot of the detail. The informal discussion is one major concern and the way AOD's will be managed is another.

[fishtank]

Something as important as this should be a member vote.

To be fair had it gone to a member vote it would have been the same result and less would have voted.
Members don't represent other members normally and are unlikely to see the potential pitfalls involved in the guidelines.
They will see the length of a stage reduced to 6 months and vote accordingly.

I'm not necessarily saying your wrong,i much prefer member votes generally but in this case i don't think it would have made any difference.

[fishtank]

You are probably right fish, but, at least people would have heard about it. If not for this site I wouldn't have known anything about it.

That's for definite.
It's disgusting that some reps didn't even discuss this with members,it's absolutely shocking if some branches didn't discuss it with their reps.
As for branches that didn't even return their ballot paper....pathetic,they should be named and shamed and the branch officials investigated by the NDC.
How can we encourage members to vote and get involved in the union when branches can't even be arsed?
I'm sure they'll have plenty excuses lined up though,something like we didn't actually receive ours,it must have got lost in the post or my dog ate it.

[dvbuk55]

You are probably right fish, but, at least people would have heard about it. If not for this site I wouldn't have known anything about it.

That's for definite.
It's disgusting that some reps didn't even discuss this with members,it's absolutely shocking if some branches didn't discuss it with their reps.
As for branches that didn't even return their ballot paper....pathetic,they should be named and shamed and the branch officials investigated by the NDC.
How can we encourage members to vote and get involved in the union when branches can't even be arsed?
I'm sure they'll have plenty excuses lined up though,something like we didn't actually receive ours,it must have got lost in the post or my dog ate it.

Strange really because at the same time this was being discussed - what popped through my door - an election address from two branch bods wanting to be elected as Branch Secretary - TBH I didn't even know they had my address - stranger still one of the bods up for election was also the returning officer - you can also assume we won't be told which way the branch voted or even if they voted. Perhaps they're fence sitters, waiting for the result so that they always come down on the winning side. You know the old saying "what goes on outside London" - is a fecking complete mystery to them.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

it is a disgrace that over 20 odd Branch's never voted and they should be written to and asked why and if it's not a good enough answer then the Branch should have their rebate withheld and consideration on being merged with another branch.

I am, if I may and with all respect to your position, disagree with merging. I think one of the causes of the disconnection with membership is that the branches are too remote and geographically too large. If we merge a poorly run branch with another, I think its going to increase the disconnect rather than improve it. Perhaps if we broke the branches up, or made it part of the model branch that officers must base themselves in different parts of the branch rather than in the largest Unit within their area that may help in this type of scenario.

The Branch's which have voted should, be asked how they came to their decision ? How many did what they should have done consulted all the offices within their branch prior to voting ??

I agree wholeheartedly, but again this is showing the disconnect within the Union, this time between branches and HQ. To my mind the officers at HQ should have branches that they oversee and when this problem occurs then the officers responsible should be applying pressure and getting answers. Those answers should be made available to members, in fact I think Branches and officers should make regular official reports which are emailed to members on a regular basis.

[woofwoof]

We have some very serious reservations about this new agreement.

I don't like the idea of members being taken into a room on their own for an "informal" review with no guidelines on what might be said or signed for.
.

from the slide i got fish

• The employee has the right to be accompanied at the meeting by a union representative or a work colleague

who said on your own

http://www.cwu.org/assets/_files/docume ... ersion.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

7. Can an employee take a rep to an informal discussion?
No. The employee will have sufficient time to consult with their union representative
but this is an informal discussion which either the manager or the employee can
request. The employee is entitled to be represented at any formal meeting.

say you can not make it you are ill my rep can attend for me

Inability to attend meetings under the attendance process

Where an employee’s health is such that they are unable to attend a meeting under the attendance process, the manager should seek advice from the Occupational Health Service to confirm this. The manager may also wish to understand whether the employee would be well enough to participate in such a meeting either at their own home, or else remotely:

• Via telephone
• Via written submissions
• By their representative attending the meeting on their behalf

If the Occupational Health Service advise that the employee is too ill to participate in any way, the manager should consider progressing the case under the Long Term Absence Process.
If the advice is that the employee can participate in a review meeting, then the manager should write to the employee inviting them to attend the meeting in person.
If the employee refuses to participate in the process and attend the meeting, the manager should explain to them that the attendance process will be continued without their cooperation and any decision made will be based on the information available to the manager at the time.

[fishtank]

I think you are confusing informal meetings with formal meetings woof.

[General Mannerheim]

Hows that work then...your rep going in for you.
Has he also got to become a Dr.Kildare? Haven't we already got enough of them disguised as management?
I can see it maybe working for colds and minor aliments but what about more complex conditions???
i certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with discussing my condition with him.

[woofwoof]

I think you are confusing informal meetings with formal meetings woof.

This guide provides details on how to manage employees who either are unable to attend for health reasons or decline to attend Occupational Health Service referrals or refuse to attend attendance meetings.

[underpants]

its a dictatorship now.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I think you are confusing informal meetings with formal meetings woof.

This guide provides details on how to manage employees who either are unable to attend for health reasons or decline to attend Occupational Health Service referrals or refuse to attend attendance meetings.

Yes but the attendance interview in this case would be a formal meeting.

The informal one is, or rather how RM want to sell it, is a friendly word when you are falling short of their procedures.

For me its somewhere between a chance for unscrupulous managers to put pressure on staff and not have witnesses and RMs vision, like most things in RM where you fall between the opposing visions depends on what type of manager you suffer from.

[fishtank]

I think you are confusing informal meetings with formal meetings woof.

This guide provides details on how to manage employees who either are unable to attend for health reasons or decline to attend Occupational Health Service referrals or refuse to attend attendance meetings.

This is what i'm talking about woof....

Informal review discussions

Informal review discussions may take place at any time before the formal attendance process where there is concern about an employee’s attendance. Within the formal attendance process the manager may decide it is appropriate to undertake additional informal review discussions.
An employee may ask for such a discussion at any time.

The aim is to make the employee aware of the reason for concern, ensure that the employee is aware of the attendance standards and identify any steps that the employee or Royal Mail Group may take to help produce an immediate and sustained improvement.

In advising an employee of an informal review discussion, the manager will explain its purpose and give the employee sufficient time to prepare for it, including the opportunity for the employee to consulting with their union representative. The manager will provide a copy of the employee’s attendance record at the meeting.

An informal review discussion might include consideration of:
• The causes, frequency, duration and pattern of absences
• Nature of work, shift system, recent changes to the demands of the job, work record and length of service
• Significant underlying health issues such as recent return from long term absence, recent or imminent hospitalisation, or problems at or outside work
• A reminder of the services of the Occupational Health Service and provision of contact numbers
• Action to be taken by the employee or Royal Mail Group including any rehabilitation measures, which might include retraining
• The prospects of improvement
• A reminder of the attendance standards and potential implications of not meeting them

The approach to the informal review discussion should be both sympathetic and supportive, and also clearly focused on achieving improvement and maintaining standards. The manager and the employee will jointly identify any support measures that may need to be considered.

There is no right to representation during this "discussion",no trigger for when it might happen and yet it talks about "Action to be taken by the employee or Royal Mail Group" and
"The prospects of improvement" despite the fact that your attendance is still "satisfactory" under the procedure.

One of the main flaws in CWU negotiations of late is an eagerness to use a template of a strong,well represented and organised office with a supportive branch and a fair and decent manager.
Perhaps that reflects the length of time they have been away from the shop floor or maybe they need to get out of London more often but in my humble opinion they should be steering agreements towards the maximum protection in a minimum representation/aggressive management scenario which would better reflect the position the majority of the membership find themselves in.

[newtimes]

If it was not for this forum, I would not of known about this Branch Ballot. Thats were the problem is, communication, our union body leads us, were I think we should lead. That issue needs to be resolved before we can start getting the RM problems sorted. I pay my subs but have no voice which can be heard.

[dvbuk55]

If it was not for this forum, I would not of known about this Branch Ballot. Thats were the problem is, communication, our union body leads us, were I think we should lead. That issue needs to be resolved before we can start getting the RM problems sorted. I pay my subs but have no voice which can be heard.

Yes newtimes, you're probably going to hear the usual cry from the union bods,"get involved" but in reality don't want you to be involved but rather maintain the status quo. I can pretty much guarantee that at least 50% of the members in my office, maybe more, have NO idea who the branch officers are, where the branch office is nor how to get in touch with them. The reason for that is that the branch consider themselves to be too important to cater to the members opinion and the last time they took a reps vote they voted against BT2010 against the wishes of the branch, who lets face it are supposed to carry out the wishes of the members They actually tried to rig the vote in favour of BT2010. The union is in total disarray and needs a damn good shake up from top to bottom. Mind the local union is just as much to blame, some members will have been here for a couple of years without there having been a meeting called.