Whose side are you on CWU?

[LaPetiteMort]

Management decide they need to move a few people from one shift to another.
It is to be done on a seniority basis, ie: those at the bottom of the seniority list will be told they have to change to the new shift unless they have a genuine reason to refuse.

Sounds fair enough, right?

One by one the chosen few are taken into a meeting room where sits a manager and a union rep.
Now, at this point you might be thinking the manager will stress the importance of the change to your working hours, and the union rep will be there to support you should you have any objection to the change?
Wrong.
What actually happened was the union rep supported the manager. In fact, the union rep was worse than the manager who, certainly in my case, was able to almost sit back and see his work being done most efficiently by the rep who angrily demanded the employees furnish proof of their stories.

Now I could state examples here, but I will refrain for now because i do not want to jeapordise any further steps that may have to be taken regarding this matter.

Never have I seen anything like this in my working life. And remember, any union member in a situation such as this would naturally look to their union for advice and support. But when the union rep has already quite clearly nailed their colours to the management mast, who do the employees turn to?

Oh one more twist in the tale. The employees who said they would have difficulty changing shifts were told a few days later that the management and another union rep (of higher rank in the union than the first rep) had looked at their cases and refused to change the decisions. They did this without speaking to the employees or asking for details of their objections.

Now I have no issue with the management here. Rightly or wrongly they want to make changes and are taking steps to bring the changes in to force. It is the total lack of support given to the employees by the CWU. In fact it's not just a lack of support, it is the blatant and shocking SHOW OF SUPPORT for the management to the detriment of the union member.

Imagine going into court having paid for a defence lawyer, only to have them join in with the prosecution lawyer in trying to get you sent down for a good stretch.
Beyond belief.

Any advice or comment would be most welcome before other avenues are persued.

[spiderj]

Vote of no confidence if the unit is strong?

[whisperstar24]

if you are happy with the unit rep or even the area rep ,ring your branch secretary and talk to him

[LaPetiteMort]

Any CWU officials/reps etc reading this?
A comment from you might be helpful. Had no response, not even an acknowledgement, from the emails I've sent to various addresses including the head office.

Even Ryanair would be ashamed of themselves if they treated people who pay their wages this way.

I am seriously considering cancelling my CWU membership and demanding a refund of monies paid, just as i would with any service I pay for but don't receive.

[General Mannerheim]

Matt Bianco?

[LaPetiteMort]

Another waste of f*****g time.

What kind of people work for this union? Cheeky ignorant bastards in my recent experience.
You can only ignore me for so long. I do not give up.

[dvbuk55]

Another waste of f*****g time.

What kind of people work for this union? Cheeky ignorant bastards in my recent experience.
You can only ignore me for so long. I do not give up.

TBH lpm when the CWU itself has nailed its colours to RMs mast it's no wonder that lesser officials also toe the line. You only have to read the posts that dingo makes to read the writing on the wall - "RM are having a hard time, all the decisions made by the CWU/PEC are in your best interests", not to mention RMs best interest. It's all a sham to give the impression that the union are part of the plan and are included when in fact they are a rubber stamp agreeing to anything RM want.

[123456]

the union now belongs to royal mail,my how times have changed.i dont know who the enemy are anymore,for all the good that has been done the cwu are now letting themselves and the members they are supposed to represent down..maybe not everywhere,but it is happening,,shameful...

[rehabron]

Studied your posting LaPetite Mort and have several questions.
1} the people at the bottom of the seniority list who are being moved do they have a signed duty or are they reserves?
2) How many from the unit are being moved in relation to the amount of duties in the unit which could warrant a resign?
3) You are correct the employees effected should have been consulted if the scale of the duty change bears no resemblance to their present duty and if so a disagreement should have been lodged by your union rep but as the opposite has occurred and union rep is supporting the changes then you should inform CWU HQ of the situation.
4) Would you have the support of your fellow workmates to have a no confidence vote in your union rep and have the status quo maintained until the matter is investigated.

[LaPetiteMort]

Studied your posting LaPetite Mort and have several questions.
1} the people at the bottom of the seniority list who are being moved do they have a signed duty or are they reserves?
2) How many from the unit are being moved in relation to the amount of duties in the unit which could warrant a resign?
3) You are correct the employees effected should have been consulted if the scale of the duty change bears no resemblance to their present duty and if so a disagreement should have been lodged by your union rep but as the opposite has occurred and union rep is supporting the changes then you should inform CWU HQ of the situation.
4) Would you have the support of your fellow workmates to have a no confidence vote in your union rep and have the status quo maintained until the matter is investigated.

Thanks for the responses, it's more than the CWU has done - including head office.

rehabron:

1) Everyone involved has a signed duty and at least 5 years in their current position.
2) RM wants 20 night-shift to move to a late shift. Current night-shift has around 60 staff, not sure about lates.
3) Two emails to HQ and a phone message to the local area rep have all gone unanswered.
4) Here's the rub. The union rep came to our unit from a mail centre along with many others and all of them have higher seniority than the 20 victims. There is little chance of a no confidence vote as it would mean offending their pal.

One of those told to move shift shares custody of his daughter with his ex wife. As his ex wife works during the day they have an arrangement whereby mum takes child to school in morning, and dad picks up at 3.30. They live on opposite sides of the city so dad keeps daughter with him until he drops her off to mum for the night on way to work.
So there is not a chance he can work lates unless he takes his daughter with him to work. When he explained this in the initial meeting with a manager and the union rep, the union rep became quite agitated and demanded - yes demanded - he gets a letter from his ex wife confirming this arrangement, a letter from her place of work confirming her hours, and proof of joint custody from a court. Now his ex wife may very well tell him to take a running jump, or even give false info, after all the fact they are divorced might be a clue to how well they get on. Her place of business is unlikely to give out personal info without her say so. And they arranged joint custody without going to court as many millions of people do.
So what can he do? First port of call would normally be the union to find out his legal position and any options available to fight the decision. But as it was the union rep who was most adamant he should prove his position re child care he is left in a difficult position.
Everybody he works with knows he has children and this particular child has even been in and met some her dad's co workers.
In fact he's one of those people who talks all the time about his kids and bores everyone with all the details of every 'funny' thing his youngest says after school. His phone is full of pictures of her and on the rare occasions he has been a little late for work it's always been because his ex wife wasn't home on time to take over child care.

It might be suspected that if any of the 20 don't move shift then one or two of the union rep's pals might be next in line, but I couldn't possibly comment about this as I do not know the facts.

If the union think they can treat members this way they are in for one hell of a shock. Working people have fought blood and tears for generations to get organised and have strong and fair representation in the workplace. It seems some union officials either don't know or have forgotten why they hold their positions and who they are there to represent.

[britwrit]

Wow. This sounds horrible. No one in the remaining forty wanted to move from nights to lates?

[Lincox]

I am afraid that what you are saying regarding union officials is now becoming a regular quote from line managers. The first thing they utter is that the CWU have sanctioned this. It is becoming the time when units override local union reps and put in a disagreement, followed up if necessary with balloting for industrial action. Any unit that has a rep that is not supporting the unit need to take matters into their own hands and show the CWU that they are a failing commodity.

[Lounge Lizard]

Studied your posting LaPetite Mort and have several questions.
1} the people at the bottom of the seniority list who are being moved do they have a signed duty or are they reserves?
2) How many from the unit are being moved in relation to the amount of duties in the unit which could warrant a resign?
3) You are correct the employees effected should have been consulted if the scale of the duty change bears no resemblance to their present duty and if so a disagreement should have been lodged by your union rep but as the opposite has occurred and union rep is supporting the changes then you should inform CWU HQ of the situation.
4) Would you have the support of your fellow workmates to have a no confidence vote in your union rep and have the status quo maintained until the matter is investigated.

Thanks for the responses, it's more than the CWU has done - including head office.

rehabron:

1) Everyone involved has a signed duty and at least 5 years in their current position.
2) RM wants 20 night-shift to move to a late shift. Current night-shift has around 60 staff, not sure about lates.
3) Two emails to HQ and a phone message to the local area rep have all gone unanswered.
4) Here's the rub. The union rep came to our unit from a mail centre along with many others and all of them have higher seniority than the 20 victims. There is little chance of a no confidence vote as it would mean offending their pal.

One of those told to move shift shares custody of his daughter with his ex wife. As his ex wife works during the day they have an arrangement whereby mum takes child to school in morning, and dad picks up at 3.30. They live on opposite sides of the city so dad keeps daughter with him until he drops her off to mum for the night on way to work.
So there is not a chance he can work lates unless he takes his daughter with him to work. When he explained this in the initial meeting with a manager and the union rep, the union rep became quite agitated and demanded - yes demanded - he gets a letter from his ex wife confirming this arrangement, a letter from her place of work confirming her hours, and proof of joint custody from a court. Now his ex wife may very well tell him to take a running jump, or even give false info, after all the fact they are divorced might be a clue to how well they get on. Her place of business is unlikely to give out personal info without her say so. And they arranged joint custody without going to court as many millions of people do.
So what can he do? First port of call would normally be the union to find out his legal position and any options available to fight the decision. But as it was the union rep who was most adamant he should prove his position re child care he is left in a difficult position.
Everybody he works with knows he has children and this particular child has even been in and met some her dad's co workers.
In fact he's one of those people who talks all the time about his kids and bores everyone with all the details of every 'funny' thing his youngest says after school. His phone is full of pictures of her and on the rare occasions he has been a little late for work it's always been because his ex wife wasn't home on time to take over child care.

It might be suspected that if any of the 20 don't move shift then one or two of the union rep's pals might be next in line, but I couldn't possibly comment about this as I do not know the facts.

If the union think they can treat members this way they are in for one hell of a shock. Working people have fought blood and tears for generations to get organised and have strong and fair representation in the workplace. It seems some union officials either don't know or have forgotten why they hold their positions and who they are there to represent.

LPM,
I always understood that trust between employer and employee was vital, hence many dismissals being for breach of trust rather than the actual offence.
Therefore if an employee told the DOM that "his ex wife works during the day they have an arrangement whereby mum takes child to school in morning, and dad picks up at 3.30 and they live on opposite sides of the city so dad keeps daughter with him until he drops her off to mum for the night on way to work" then surely the DOM should accept that as fact, unless he had reason to believe that that might not be so. If in doubt then MAYBE the DOM would ask the employee to sign a statement to the effect that his ex wife works during the day they have an arrangement whereby mum takes child to school in morning, and dad picks up at 3.30 and they live on opposite sides of the city so dad keeps daughter with him until he drops her off to mum for the night on way to work.
But it is most certainly wrong for the union rep to ask, let alone demand, that he gets a letter from his ex wife confirming this arrangement, a letter from her place of work confirming her hours, and proof of joint custody from a court. Disgraceful.

[Martin Walsh]

I assume that the office has agreed to a reduction in nights of 20 duties. Once there is a reduction then the in line with MTSF pay protection guidelines 20 individuals have to the go onto a late shift and receive their night allowance for a maximum of three years. ( the length is determined by how long you have performed a night )

Obviously this would then mean that 20 least senior individuals have to go onto nights. Indivdual circumstances should be taken into consideration but let's be clear very few individuals will want to voluntary move to a late shift and in my experience some will put up agreements which are not factual to stay on a night shift and this is where it is important to have factual evidence to prove an individuals case be that he or she is a carer etc.

Remember 20 will have to move and if 10 of the least senior individuals have put up agreements why they cannot do a late shift then it will mean 10 more senior indivdual have to move and they will then question why those who are less senior have been able to give reasons why they should stay on nights. This is why factual evidence needs to be provided.

The CWU rep has to ensure that all the night members are being treated fairly and with 20 having to go onto lates that anyone who has put a reason why they cannot do a late that there is a paper trail as it will probable go to an appeal if a more senior indivdual is asked to do a late and less senior members on nights are allowed to continue to nights.

This is never an easy situation for a union rep as no one on nights will want to go onto the late shift and a number will give reasons why they cannot which are not valid reasons and some which are not factual and believe me I have seen hundreds which have simply not stood up to any scuritny. The indivdual you made a case for has a legitimate case to staying on the late shift and even if his ex does not provide any assistance in the matter then his own solicitors letters etc should be enough to prove to the manager and rep that his case is valid. This will then mean the next more senior indivdual will be asked to move to the late shift.

Remember if anyone who is left on the night shift should leave there after in line with the MTSF they will go to those recieving night shift on the lates ans will offer the job to the most senior person.

I cannot comment on the altitude of the rep but the situation in your office has been faced by many over the years. The difference is that the CWU hav secured pay protection to protect an individuals shift allowance when there is a. Reduction in jobs.

[dvbuk55]

Well there you have it in a nutshell - it is what it is so suck it up. Personally I would have thought that the CWU rep was there to support the members not RM and if documentary evidence is required then it is for RM to request it NOT the union rep. Still you've had it from the horses mouth that many people will just make excuses to avoid moving and those bad people shouldn't be making life hard for the poor old rep. Well I presume it's the horses mouth, but it would depend which way it was facing I suppose