Understanding the magnitude of this agreement

[Martin Walsh]

Whilst I fully understand that people will read this agreement and make an opinion on whats in the words or their interpretation of whats in the words.

Let's be clear there is no union in the UK who has after priviatisation decided to force the employer to agree legal protections against the normal impact from privisation. Why do the RMT have so many ballots ? Cause they deal with so many franchises who all want to do the work cheaper.

Now what most of you do not know is that alongside the 36 page national agreement and 8 page agreement on pensions is a 23 page legal contract.

When I first read this agreement and the legal contract I had dozens of questions and clarification I wanted.

Ivan Walker who was the CWU lawyer helped explain some of the detail.

This is the first major legally binding agreement in the UK. What some need to understand is that the legally binding contract is not with employees but with the CWU.

Some of the approaches in the contact are standard. But the legally binding part now makes for the first time the IR framework legally enforceable.

So if a manager decides to say to the local rep we are introducing something next week say a revision , later starts , reduction in your TM1 you can say you don't agree and it has to go through the IR framework and it cannot be introdued by executive action. If you still cannot agree at stage 3 then it will go to a mediator who will try and make recommendations which are not complusory. If you still cannot reach an agreement then the CWU can take strike action and employer can take executive action. Hardly a no strike deal.

If management attempt to by pass the it framework the union can seek an high court injunction as Royal Mail will be in breach of the legally binding terms of the IR framework.

Plus let's look at the flash point / early warning procduce so this is when management say that this will be introduced as it is non negotiatable then this can be to the div reps and senior management to resolve or take to mediation.

Plus the agreement for the first time recognises that unofficial action should fall under the mediation process. Only a couple of years ago any office taking unofficial action had the punishment charter put on them removing all local agreements and changing work practices on their return from UIA. Now they will be treated by any other office with mediation.

Now let's look at what most of you are claiming is a no strike deal and what is known as exceptional circumstances, well let's deal with each

A) if Royal Mail were to cease to be the USO provider if would be because the company was on its last legs and is inconcievable.
B) if the legal protections were saying that the company was in breach of law by contuing them. Well Royal Mail would have to prove that it was in court as the CWU would take them as part of our armoury.
C) again if a part of the company was in financial trouble they would also have to demonstrate this in court.
D ) if off comm proposed something which the business claim they could not again sustain the legal protections they would have to prove this in court.
E) now let's look at what has been agreed it does not state that we cannot ballot , it says action which has been authorised at national level. Let's be clear here if you look at the cultural change section and industrial stability part of the agreement and the programe of work we will know well in advance whether the principles of this agreement is working and if it's not then. Quite frankly why would we bother being worried about them withdrawing the legal protections cause when we get any deal we would want the legal protections back.

Now let's look at the amount of national ballots we have had since 1971, there was the 1988 dras dispute , the 1996 employee agenda , the 2003 pay and major change , in 2007 pay and mod , in 2009 business transformation and in 2013 agenda for growth ,stability and long term success .

What is the common link to the national disputes ? Yes it's pay there has never been a national dispute without a pay rise or pay rises attached. This agreement has 3 year deal. I cannot see any problems at least for the first 3 years.

The choice is are you better off with the legal protections which stop the break up of the company , stops franchising , stop outsourcing and stops a 2 tier workforce or do you want to vote no on the basis of the basis you want to not have a get out clause if we call strike action.

You can't have both the business will not agree the legal protections and not have a right to review it if we take national strike action.

If you are voting no on that basis get it right you are voting not to have any legal protections.

There will be reps briefings on the agreement hopefully with legal support.

[pants123]

[red72]

Thanks dingo for clarification .

[Glenno]

still reading and understanding what has been proposed ta

[drb]

Just to add,(and I will be having the debate with our members in the week). We recently did a questionnaire with members as a branch on what our members wanted,(yes! brave I know! Needed to be done). The thing that scared members about their trade union was....surprise surprise! Strike action!

On that basis the agreement has plenty of legal protection for jobs and of course pay,(this was the other top two returns on the questionnaire,(pay and job security). Yes there was comments on bullying and unfair workloads. However I have filed and applied for many ballots in the past and will continue to do so. However looking at the document,local action now has many mediation processes rather the the current one,(that's right..the DSM throwing it in the bin!).

I love the debate on this forum,but for individuals to merely say "I am leaving the union" because of this agreement is a bit daft! Also the "pies" and "living it up in hotels" statements is silly too. I do not know what high level negotiations look like. Do you?

[Bert66]

As i thought Royal Mail must be under the same sort of constraints as the union, i just couldn't see the unions top brass agreeing a one sided unbalanced agreement.

[halfull]

what is going to be done about workload in delivery!? Its bullshit what we are going through on a daily basis! you can spin whatever crap you want but all most posties care about is getting workload sorted that causes b&h from management!?

Most are saying they are voting no as delivery has not been high enough on the agenda!
bullying & impossible savings must stop, my vote is a big fat NO as the cwu dont realize how serious we are on the brink in delivery!

[drb]

@ Halful - Totally agree. It is madness on deliveries. However where is your disagreement from your rep/branch?

[FinishOnTime]

What action do we take in 2016 if RM laugh in our faces when we start talking about a pay rise? Just over 2 years time.

[drb]

@Finishontime - I would imagine our national officers alongside branch political officers will need to lobby their local Labour party MP's in regards to Ofcom not nearly doing enough in regards to DSA and the massive threat of TNT taking our work and their T&C's for their workers.

The work that has disappeared from our D.O's is really scary,and we are struggling for indoor work,(letters). In five years time I fear what the mail landscape will look like. It is about protecting those jobs or peaople leave on their current favorable terms,(in which we currently enjoy).

However,(as I am always telling members),last years model week on letters/packets/tracked looks nothing like this year. In fact on collections we are lucky if we pick up half a bag on 50 odd boxes for live mail. Do we fight on after 2016? Yes.

Regardless of what some may say..our union has a good track record.8 times out of 10 we have local reps rather then regional ones,(we have those too alongside delivery and network reps too). However the lack of proper procedure for disagreements and local ballot requests are disappointing.
PS: I promise you Royal Mail have not been laughing in these negotiations!

[halfull]

@ Halful - Totally agree. It is madness on deliveries. However where is your disagreement from your rep/branch?

disagreement for what? My branch will probably tell me how this deal is the best thing since sliced loaf like the last deal & we all know how that pile of dog s**t turned out! I am the rep! & many in my office are too afraid to put grievances or b&h cases as they fear they will be marked men after! Thats how bad it is now,people think its better to put up with this crap or it could even get worse for them! Most people who feel bullied in life keep it to themselves,this is a fact did you not know this? The union at the very top need to focus on these problems not a 0.0000002% extra on pay than we were initially offered! folks dont give a s**t about that in delivery! Lets do a poll on every delivery worker in RM & ask them if they are happy at work or stressed out! I know what my money would be on getting the lions share of the vote!

[drb]

Halful - Yes I do not disagree but you have do do something about it. Have you done your disagreement yet? If not heard within 7 days it is then unilateral. Then send to the everyone you can think of. Delivery director,Moya,Divisional,Outdoor secretary...the list is endless...keep punching!

Would you like a copy of the RM-CWU disagreement template?

[halfull]

Halful - Yes I do not disagree but you have do do something about it. Have you done your disagreement yet? If not heard within 7 days it is then unilateral. Then send to the everyone you can think of. Delivery director,Moya,Divisional,Outdoor secretary...the list is endless...keep punching!

Would you like a copy of the RM-CWU disagreement template?

dont even know what RM-CWU disagreement template you are referring to old pal!

[drb]

Sorry Halful - I thought you said you where the rep?

[freelunch]

In practice the new agreement will give those bullying delivery managers carte blanche to go further and encourage more managers to intimidate staff. They know union members can't walk out, their feet tied within an IR framework.
And what's with the incentive scheme? It's so bad we only get to know AFTER they receive a yes vote