M.T.S.F.

[k979aaa]

This agreement MUST remain untouched for with the advent of 40000 job loss'es we cannot afford to let our guard down on this single most important agreement for here is what royalmail said about it."the current arrangements for managing the surpluses are not appropritate for a commercial organisation making changes at the speed required in royalmail. from 1 april 2008 , the MTSF agreement will nologer apply to CWU represented grades in royal mail letters and will be replaced with a process that manages headcount in a commercial but sensitve way." I for one will not rest until we receive cast iron assurances that this agreement will not touched for evermore.!!!!!

[strangler]

This agreement MUST remain untouched for with the advent of 40000 job loss'es we cannot afford to let our guard down on this single most important agreement for here is what royalmail said about it."the current arrangements for managing the surpluses are not appropritate for a commercial organisation making changes at the speed required in royalmail. from 1 april 2008 , the MTSF agreement will nologer apply to CWU represented grades in royal mail letters and will be replaced with a process that manages headcount in a commercial but sensitve way." I for one will not rest until we receive cast iron assurances that this agreement will not touched for evermore.!!!!!

You`re right. I`d be very surprised if the CWU agreed to this. Not only would it mean s**t terms for VR but also 'last in, first out' in terms of redundancies.

[G4GYJ]

I agree the MTSF agreement must not be delt away or watered down, because if RM get their foot in the door nobodys job will be safe.

[Daniel Dunglas Home]

I dont think we can retain MTSF in its entirety but the key points should be defended to the hilt. On the comment about 'headcount' i can see where they're coming from, they granted a number of VR's in our office when it was made a national policy to slim the industry 3 years ago but then replaced the staff so no savings made there. They'll most probably insist on filling all vacancies around an office with displaced staff first then if there's any surplass, offer VR's
What will be most interesting about this is how the pension benefits will be affected for those who take VR's.
Its certainly one of the most important agreements now.

[mailjock]

strangler said - You`re right. I`d be very surprised if the CWU agreed to this. Not only would it mean s**t terms for VR but also 'last in, first out' in terms of redundancies.

Don't think that's the case - they would do a matrix of all employees and lowest scores would be selected for redundo - of course they can skew the matrix to suit who they want to get out the door and it is very hard to prove they have done this. So I doubt it'll be last in first out especially not if someone has over 12 months service and is covered therefore by employment protection legislation and can go to a tribunal for unfair selection for dismissal.

[madelin4]

I thought last in first out was now discrimation? mayb not but i heard they cant do it anymore.. mayb they will go on records, i.e. poor attendance and time keeping conduct etc, but even that aint fair,,,,god knows!!! and are they going to say so many out in each individual office????????

[strangler]

The way it`s worded suggests to me that they would get rid of the numbers as cheaply as possible.
I suspect that whichever way they did it you could argue it`s discrimination. But there are limits. They still offer VR first to the 55+ age group and as far as I`m aware that hasn`t been successfully challenged as age discrimination (quite rightly in my view).
There were stories in my office not too long ago that holiday allocation would not be done by seniority as there were people complaining about age discrimination. However that was a little different because you could have good seniority but still be younger than some.

[Daniel Dunglas Home]

Age discrimination HAS been successfully challenged in this respect: 50-59 year olds displaced from their previous duty e.g. a night shift would get their allowances for that whole period under the original MTSF agreement (which incidently is unchanged in the main document on the CWU website)
Now on an ammendmant they'll get those allowances for 2 years with the final third deferred and paid as a pensionable lump sum in the last month prior to leaving the business.
The selection criteria for VR's remains the same on the grounds that these are not compulsory. 55's and over first in seniorty order then 54 down in seniorty order. This seems like a bit of a fudge to me.
As i see it age as such should just be removed from the agreement with length of service being the qualification for VR's.

[the beautiful bd south]

Age discrimination HAS been successfully challenged in this respect: 50-59 year olds displaced from their previous duty e.g. a night shift would get their allowances for that whole period under the original MTSF agreement (which incidently is unchanged in the main document on the CWU website)
Now on an ammendmant they'll get those allowances for 2 years with the final third deferred and paid as a pensionable lump sum in the last month prior to leaving the business.
The selection criteria for VR's remains the same on the grounds that these are not compulsory. 55's and over first in seniorty order then 54 down in seniorty order. This seems like a bit of a fudge to me.
As i see it age as such should just be removed from the agreement with length of service being the qualification for VR's.

Is the the case?
I have been trying to find any ltb stating this but been unable?
Help