Seniority & revisions

[oldfart]

Our office had a full revision almost 2 years ago, when the re-pick was organised the duties were broken down into different categories, ft driver, pt driver, ft walker, pt walker. For example, duty 100 was a ft driving duty so only a ft driver could take it. As a result of the imbalance of the driver/ walker/ft/pt workforce, we now have ft Posties with 8 years service who don't have their own duty but pt postie's with 2 years service have their own duty. Is there anything that can be done to challenge this ?

[chrisj]

But this has been going on for 2 years?

In ours, we have part time with about one year with duties and floating duties; and FT with 8/9 years as Reserves. We also have PT Reserves - mainly 27 hours (they actually work a lot more hours)

People do not even think about it because there is no other way: the duties have been structured that way and there some FT that does not even drive.

It sucks being a Reserve but seniority can only get you so far these days with shared walks - in this case, the more seniors are still secure and those in the middle are just middling.

What do you want done about it? (there could be another Revision round the corner)

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Not anything really you can do about it now, your office agreed to implement it, generally there should be no need for as many separate groups, as delivery span should have been the same me regardless of ft or pt and as such anyone should have been able to pick any walk and anyone should have been able to be a reserve albeit start times may have needed to be altered slightly to accommodate certain pt and ft combinations, the only thing that should really have affected getting a duty should have been drivers and non drivers (and duties ring fenced for equalities act)

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The design and layout of the office may affect the duty allocation.

For instance Huddersfield is on 3 floors and has 5 postcodes in the same building. Because of that the most efficient way of assigning duties is by designating them as FT or PT. Otherwise if they were all open to PT & FT then its possible one postcode section would be all FTs or all PTs - that would make IPS in the affected sections difficult if not impossible to manage.