The whole cutting off procedure really needs looking at. A lot of union reps or long term posties have a fixed duty so can more easily judge if they are going to go over or not.
A lot of new(ish) employees get moved around all the time, don't know rounds, have different start and finish times from other posties.
Also no two days are the same. You can get 10+ specials and over 20 oversize/tracks one day and if most people are in then you can finish dead on time. But on another day you might have to try neighbours, write over a dozen P739's, get caught in traffic(cause you don't know route) all of this can easily take you well over you're time. Even at 1pm its hard to judge if you're going to finish on time. And now some Dom's are insisting all overtime is agreed before you leave otherwise they won't pay, hence why most refuse to work over.
This doesn't sound like correct procedure, it sound like basic bullying to me.
Krafty wrote:Same happened to me and the bloke I was working with.
Told them before we went out we did not want to work over.
We both brought our last loop back, and the next day we were charged with wilful delay of mail even though we went through the right procedure.
We were given a 1 year reprimand - union couldn't do anything about it.
What a great place to work!
what you did hand the op did differs slightly he followed the cutting off procedure, unfortunately just telling dom you won't work over is not following the procedure hence why union would struggle to find a defence
the correct procedure is to inform the dom when it becomes a parang you can't complete and then let him decide how he wants to manage the situation, he can then get someone else to deliver it or pay ot or even fail it, but he has to be the one to make the decision, simply saying before you go out you won't work over is not following that procedure. The op did the correct thing and advised dom as soon as it was apparantly he could not complete dom then made mistake of insisting he completes regardless which is not an option he is allowed to force on someone
Thats wrong. What the guys saying they didn't want to work OT BEFORE they went out on delivery is actually the correct procedure. The only thing they might have done wrong is take the loop out they couldn't complete unless DOM told them to bring it back if they couldn't deliver it in their time.
your wrong, just saying "i wont work over my time" is not following the correct procedure, as that phrase doesnt tell the dom catagorically that they cant complete, a postie could very well say i wont work over my time but still have plenty of time in his delivery to complete, to be following the correct procedure he needs to state he does not have enough time to complete his duty, it is a small but crucial difference difference
Yes staff do need to be better informed. But the problem is that even if they are following the process they are still being given warnings which should not be happening. As most staff are now living in fear of this happening to them and are now just working overtime and not claiming or just starting early to get finished on time the union have known about this for a very long time and do nothing to stop this
Krafty wrote:Same happened to me and the bloke I was working with.
Told them before we went out we did not want to work over.
We both brought our last loop back, and the next day we were charged with wilful delay of mail even though we went through the right procedure.
We were given a 1 year reprimand - union couldn't do anything about it.
What a great place to work!
what you did hand the op did differs slightly he followed the cutting off procedure, unfortunately just telling dom you won't work over is not following the procedure hence why union would struggle to find a defence
the correct procedure is to inform the dom when it becomes a parang you can't complete and then let him decide how he wants to manage the situation, he can then get someone else to deliver it or pay ot or even fail it, but he has to be the one to make the decision, simply saying before you go out you won't work over is not following that procedure. The op did the correct thing and advised dom as soon as it was apparantly he could not complete dom then made mistake of insisting he completes regardless which is not an option he is allowed to force on someone
Thats wrong. What the guys saying they didn't want to work OT BEFORE they went out on delivery is actually the correct procedure. The only thing they might have done wrong is take the loop out they couldn't complete unless DOM told them to bring it back if they couldn't deliver it in their time.
your wrong, just saying "i wont work over my time" is not following the correct procedure, as that phrase doesnt tell the dom catagorically that they cant complete, a postie could very well say i wont work over my time but still have plenty of time in his delivery to complete, to be following the correct procedure he needs to state he does not have enough time to complete his duty, it is a small but crucial difference difference
Well I assume when they said they both were not willing to work over their time they asked the DOM what he wanted them to do if they couldn't complete.
That is correct, phoning at 2.15pm is not.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
97gaz wrote:From reading the OPs post I'm not sure he did follow procedure. He says he rang the DOM at 14.15 but procedure states that the Dom has to be informed before going out that you can't complete. If the DOM had no prior indication that the duty might fail then they probably have a case for taking it further . The staff need to be better informed of the over running procedure because too many are falling into this trap.
Nowhere on the over running delivery procedure does it state that the manager has to be informed before going out. in fact if you actually read the procedure it you will see that by phoning the op didin fact follow the correct procedure
97gaz wrote:From reading the OPs post I'm not sure he did follow procedure. He says he rang the DOM at 14.15 but procedure states that the Dom has to be informed before going out that you can't complete. If the DOM had no prior indication that the duty might fail then they probably have a case for taking it further . The staff need to be better informed of the over running procedure because too many are falling into this trap.
the dom should be informed has soon has you are aware you wont be able to complete it doesnt say what time of day
Krafty wrote:Same happened to me and the bloke I was working with.
Told them before we went out we did not want to work over.
We both brought our last loop back, and the next day we were charged with wilful delay of mail even though we went through the right procedure.
We were given a 1 year reprimand - union couldn't do anything about it.
What a great place to work!
what you did hand the op did differs slightly he followed the cutting off procedure, unfortunately just telling dom you won't work over is not following the procedure hence why union would struggle to find a defence
the correct procedure is to inform the dom when it becomes a parang you can't complete and then let him decide how he wants to manage the situation, he can then get someone else to deliver it or pay ot or even fail it, but he has to be the one to make the decision, simply saying before you go out you won't work over is not following that procedure. The op did the correct thing and advised dom as soon as it was apparantly he could not complete dom then made mistake of insisting he completes regardless which is not an option he is allowed to force on someone
Thats wrong. What the guys saying they didn't want to work OT BEFORE they went out on delivery is actually the correct procedure. The only thing they might have done wrong is take the loop out they couldn't complete unless DOM told them to bring it back if they couldn't deliver it in their time.
your wrong, just saying "i wont work over my time" is not following the correct procedure, as that phrase doesnt tell the dom catagorically that they cant complete, a postie could very well say i wont work over my time but still have plenty of time in his delivery to complete, to be following the correct procedure he needs to state he does not have enough time to complete his duty, it is a small but crucial difference difference
Well I assume when they said they both were not willing to work over their time they asked the DOM what he wanted them to do if they couldn't complete.
That is correct, phoning at 2.15pm is not.
phoning at 2.15 is correct, as clearly stated in the over running deliveries procedure
Krafty wrote:Same happened to me and the bloke I was working with.
Told them before we went out we did not want to work over.
We both brought our last loop back, and the next day we were charged with wilful delay of mail even though we went through the right procedure.
We were given a 1 year reprimand - union couldn't do anything about it.
What a great place to work!
what you did hand the op did differs slightly he followed the cutting off procedure, unfortunately just telling dom you won't work over is not following the procedure hence why union would struggle to find a defence
the correct procedure is to inform the dom when it becomes a parang you can't complete and then let him decide how he wants to manage the situation, he can then get someone else to deliver it or pay ot or even fail it, but he has to be the one to make the decision, simply saying before you go out you won't work over is not following that procedure. The op did the correct thing and advised dom as soon as it was apparantly he could not complete dom then made mistake of insisting he completes regardless which is not an option he is allowed to force on someone
What I forgot to add is: We told the manager before going out that we did not want to go over our time.
The manager said do what you can and bring the rest back - which is what we did, and we still got a year reprimand.
Just doesn't make any sense.
I hate doing this job now.
Krafty wrote:Same happened to me and the bloke I was working with.
Told them before we went out we did not want to work over.
We both brought our last loop back, and the next day we were charged with wilful delay of mail even though we went through the right procedure.
We were given a 1 year reprimand - union couldn't do anything about it.
What a great place to work!
what you did hand the op did differs slightly he followed the cutting off procedure, unfortunately just telling dom you won't work over is not following the procedure hence why union would struggle to find a defence
the correct procedure is to inform the dom when it becomes a parang you can't complete and then let him decide how he wants to manage the situation, he can then get someone else to deliver it or pay ot or even fail it, but he has to be the one to make the decision, simply saying before you go out you won't work over is not following that procedure. The op did the correct thing and advised dom as soon as it was apparantly he could not complete dom then made mistake of insisting he completes regardless which is not an option he is allowed to force on someone
Thats wrong. What the guys saying they didn't want to work OT BEFORE they went out on delivery is actually the correct procedure. The only thing they might have done wrong is take the loop out they couldn't complete unless DOM told them to bring it back if they couldn't deliver it in their time.
I find you need to have a witness every time you talk to a manager, otherwise you're screwed.
This job is going downhill faster than I can run...............................
Krafty wrote:Same happened to me and the bloke I was working with.
Told them before we went out we did not want to work over.
We both brought our last loop back, and the next day we were charged with wilful delay of mail even though we went through the right procedure.
We were given a 1 year reprimand - union couldn't do anything about it.
What a great place to work!
what you did hand the op did differs slightly he followed the cutting off procedure, unfortunately just telling dom you won't work over is not following the procedure hence why union would struggle to find a defence
the correct procedure is to inform the dom when it becomes a parang you can't complete and then let him decide how he wants to manage the situation, he can then get someone else to deliver it or pay ot or even fail it, but he has to be the one to make the decision, simply saying before you go out you won't work over is not following that procedure. The op did the correct thing and advised dom as soon as it was apparantly he could not complete dom then made mistake of insisting he completes regardless which is not an option he is allowed to force on someone
What I forgot to add is: We told the manager before going out that we did not want to go over our time.
The manager said do what you can and bring the rest back - which is what we did, and we still got a year reprimand.
Just doesn't make any sense.
I hate doing this job now.
the important difference is that saying "we wont go over our time" or "we cannot complete within our time" is that the first phrase is not following the procedure and the second phase is
if you say you wont go over your time, that does not necessarily mean that you cant complete in your time, guys say it all the time, "its too busy today am not going over my time" yet low and behold when they actually get out the sometimes find they are finishing early, hence the difference in the phrase the correct procedure is to inform the dom that you cant complete in your time then let him decide how he wants to manage the situation
97gaz wrote:From reading the OPs post I'm not sure he did follow procedure. He says he rang the DOM at 14.15 but procedure states that the Dom has to be informed before going out that you can't complete. If the DOM had no prior indication that the duty might fail then they probably have a case for taking it further . The staff need to be better informed of the over running procedure because too many are falling into this trap.
That's only if you know before you leave the office, if not then the proceedure is to notify them as soon as you realise you are not going to get done, he phoned them so he did this.
Krafty wrote:Same happened to me and the bloke I was working with.
Told them before we went out we did not want to work over.
We both brought our last loop back, and the next day we were charged with wilful delay of mail even though we went through the right procedure.
We were given a 1 year reprimand - union couldn't do anything about it.
What a great place to work!
what you did hand the op did differs slightly he followed the cutting off procedure, unfortunately just telling dom you won't work over is not following the procedure hence why union would struggle to find a defence
the correct procedure is to inform the dom when it becomes a parang you can't complete and then let him decide how he wants to manage the situation, he can then get someone else to deliver it or pay ot or even fail it, but he has to be the one to make the decision, simply saying before you go out you won't work over is not following that procedure. The op did the correct thing and advised dom as soon as it was apparantly he could not complete dom then made mistake of insisting he completes regardless which is not an option he is allowed to force on someone
Thats wrong. What the guys saying they didn't want to work OT BEFORE they went out on delivery is actually the correct procedure. The only thing they might have done wrong is take the loop out they couldn't complete unless DOM told them to bring it back if they couldn't deliver it in their time.
your wrong, just saying "i wont work over my time" is not following the correct procedure, as that phrase doesnt tell the dom catagorically that they cant complete, a postie could very well say i wont work over my time but still have plenty of time in his delivery to complete, to be following the correct procedure he needs to state he does not have enough time to complete his duty, it is a small but crucial difference difference
Well I assume when they said they both were not willing to work over their time they asked the DOM what he wanted them to do if they couldn't complete.
That is correct, phoning at 2.15pm is not.
phoning at 2.15 is correct, as clearly stated in the over running deliveries procedure
If he wasn't willing to work over his time then surely you would need to tell the DOM before leaving. Its assumed and expected that if ye don't say otherwise that if your over your time and still have mail you will deliver it. Not saying I agree with it but I can see why not saying anything until 2.15 is asking for trouble.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
Acca Dacca wrote:If he wasn't willing to work over his time then surely you would need to tell the DOM before leaving. Its assumed and expected that if ye don't say otherwise that if your over your time and still have mail you will deliver it.
You do not need to tell the dom before you leave if you are or not willing to work ot, reasoning being that following the procedure you should be getting doms permission to claim that OT prior to actually claiming it.
its is not assumed anywhere that you will work over your time without prior approval from your dom, in fact if you decide to work over without clearing the OT with your dom first, legally RM can refuse to pay you that OT
Acca Dacca wrote:Not saying I agree with it but I can see why not saying anything until 2.15 is asking for trouble.
Sorry but following a national agreement to the letter is not asking for trouble, a dom not knowing said agreement is the one asking for trouble
the union have known about this for a very long time and do nothing to stop this 