Changes of Shift Pattern Based On Seniority

postman_jack · Post by **postman_jack** » 13 Apr 2016, 15:52

Hi

Majority of my office are on the 1 in 4 weeks off shift pattern, only a handful remain on the 1 in 6. According to our DOM there will be job changes in two weeks ( taking out jobs) and that only top 18 senior people will be allowed to remain on the 1 in 4 off and the others must revert back to 1 in 6. There were rumors of the whole office reverting back to the 1 in 6 week but the union rep said they can't do that because of the national agreement of having 1 in 4 Saturdays, and they could only do that if we as an office voted for it. The DOM only sweet talked us into going on the 1 in 4 around 3 and half years ago but know he says it ain't working as it should.

Can they do this? I would have thought not? I thought I'll ask on here before contacting my local CWU rep.

Cheers

IcanthelpthewayIam · Post by **IcanthelpthewayIam** » 13 Apr 2016, 17:35

simple answer is yes your dom can do this, however, there are agreed ways to fight against it, if your office does not want to make any of these changes then the rep should lodge a stage 1 disagreement asap and insist on the status quo until resolved, and then follow the agreed IR process through as far as needed

postman_jack · Post by **postman_jack** » 13 Apr 2016, 17:42

but by dividing the office, is this not discrimination?

IcanthelpthewayIam · Post by **IcanthelpthewayIam** » 13 Apr 2016, 17:50

postman_jack wrote:but by dividing the office, is this not discrimination?

Not in anyway you can fight, can only fight it through ir process starting with a stage 1 disagreement

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 13 Apr 2016, 19:44

they did it to us at our office. they said there was not enough work on Mondays and Tuesdays and Saturdays to sustain the shift patterns we had which was 1 week off in every 4. or 9 day fortnites. no body wanted the changes so we even got the branch involved. but them and the rep said they agreed with management that they could not justify those shift patterns if the work was not there. they also said if we wanted to keep our shift patterns it would mean 9 duties would go out the office, which we all thought was bullshit and scaremongering to get us to accept the changes. we were given a vote on new shift patterns but these did not include our beloved 1 in 4s or 9 day fortnites. instead we were offered to go back on 5 days a week, with the top 18 senior staff on 1 Saturday off in 3. and the next 40 staff on 1 Saturday off in 4. and the rest, juniors and part timers on Tuesdays only off. so yes they can most definitely can and WILL force in the changes. you will probably find your rep will be telling you's to accept these changes as the weeks go by. RM reckon every office will be reverting back to these shifts over time.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 13 Apr 2016, 19:53

zx135 wrote:simple answer is yes your dom can do this, however, there are agreed ways to fight against it, if your office does not want to make any of these changes then the rep should lodge a stage 1 disagreement asap and insist on the status quo until resolved, and then follow the agreed IR process through as far as needed

we did all off this zx, none of us wanted the changes, but it was the rep who came at us with the warning that there wasn't enough work to sustain them and that 9 jobs could go if we kept the shift patterns. we weren't even allowed to keep the status quo and no stage disagreements were lodged. we felt robbed and a lot dropped out of the union because of it. we are all still very disgruntled almost 2 yrs on.

IcanthelpthewayIam · Post by **IcanthelpthewayIam** » 13 Apr 2016, 19:56

daveyeff wrote:
zx135 wrote:simple answer is yes your dom can do this, however, there are agreed ways to fight against it, if your office does not want to make any of these changes then the rep should lodge a stage 1 disagreement asap and insist on the status quo until resolved, and then follow the agreed IR process through as far as needed
we did all off this zx, none of us wanted the changes, but it was the rep who came at us with the warning that there wasn't enough work to sustain them and that 9 jobs could go if we kept the shift patterns. we weren't even allowed to keep the status quo and no stage disagreements were lodged. we felt robbed and a lot dropped out of the union because of it. we are all still very disgruntled almost 2 yrs on.

if no stage 1 disagreement was lodged then you havent "done all this" in fact that is the very first step which wasnt done

it doesnt actually matter if the rep and area rep or even branch agree with management, if the office wants a disagreement put in, the union is supposed to do it, and then if it goes up to stage 1 2 3 etc even if the reps disagree, they should follow the offices wishes and continue the IR process, the office can be dead wrong but if they want the IR process followed then the reps have a duty to do so

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 13 Apr 2016, 20:04

zx135 wrote:
daveyeff wrote:
zx135 wrote:simple answer is yes your dom can do this, however, there are agreed ways to fight against it, if your office does not want to make any of these changes then the rep should lodge a stage 1 disagreement asap and insist on the status quo until resolved, and then follow the agreed IR process through as far as needed
we did all off this zx, none of us wanted the changes, but it was the rep who came at us with the warning that there wasn't enough work to sustain them and that 9 jobs could go if we kept the shift patterns. we weren't even allowed to keep the status quo and no stage disagreements were lodged. we felt robbed and a lot dropped out of the union because of it. we are all still very disgruntled almost 2 yrs on.
if no stage 1 disagreement was lodged then you havent "done all this" in fact that is the very first step which wasnt done

it doesnt actually matter if the rep and area rep or even branch agree with management, if the office wants a disagreement put in, the union is supposed to do it, and then if it goes up to stage 1 2 3 etc even if the reps disagree, they should follow the offices wishes and continue the IR process, the office can be dead wrong but if they want the IR process followed then the reps have a duty to do so

well it shows how misinformed and misrepresented we all were then. because that is exactly what we would have done had we been aware of this. this is a TOTAL shock to the system because we were kept in the dark by the rep and the area rep and the branch because they would have known this. we,ve been sold down the river. they even opened the ballot box halfway through the vote to see which way it was going. the rep said he simply wasn't going to let 9 jobs go out of the office so we had no choice but to accept.... B******S!!

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 14 Apr 2016, 17:04

well ive been talking to a rep from another office today, and he says even if we had of done what zx said, it would have come out the same way. he says if we had of lodged the disagreement, it would've went to 1, 2, then 3. and without the agreement from the reps or branch it would've peatered out and because remaining at the status quo was a no go, then the changes would've come in anyway. which is still disheartening but more acceptable knowing it was inevitable.

IcanthelpthewayIam · Post by **IcanthelpthewayIam** » 14 Apr 2016, 18:08

daveyeff wrote:well ive been talking to a rep from another office today, and he says even if we had of done what zx said, it would have come out the same way. he says if we had of lodged the disagreement, it would've went to 1, 2, then 3. and without the agreement from the reps or branch it would've peatered out and because remaining at the status quo was a no go, then the changes would've come in anyway. which is still disheartening but more acceptable knowing it was inevitable.

it wouldn't have petered out unless the office wanted it to, after stage 3 you then hold a rule 13 ballot and royal mail can only implement the change by executive action which they don't want to do, royal mail have agreed mediation in the last agreement over such issues, these things are never a forgone conclusion even if the reps won't support you

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 14 Apr 2016, 18:36

cant help feeling we've been done over on this. can we not do anything now or is it all too late.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 14 Apr 2016, 18:37

what is a rule 13 ballot anyways

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 14 Apr 2016, 18:40

also if we had done all this could they have went ahead and made 9 jobs redundant in the office like the reps said would happen, or do you think this was a smokescreen to get what they wanted?

IcanthelpthewayIam · Post by **IcanthelpthewayIam** » 14 Apr 2016, 18:51

daveyeff wrote:also if we had done all this could they have went ahead and made 9 jobs redundant in the office like the reps said would happen, or do you think this was a smokescreen to get what they wanted?

There is currently a no compulsory redundancy agreement so yes that was a smokescreen

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 14 Apr 2016, 18:51

daveyeff wrote:what is a rule 13 ballot anyways

http://www.cwu.org/assets/cwu/legacy-as ... e_2015.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rule 13 Industrial Action
1. The NEC, a Conference or a properly convened Branch Meeting may in furtherance of
the Union’s objectives decide to authorise, endorse, call or take industrial action,
including strike action. All such action must be within the law and in accordance with,
and in compliance of, all statutory obligations, inclusive of ballots etc. Where a Branch
decides to take action to protect immediate local interests, the General Secretary and
NEC must be informed.
2. For the avoidance of doubt it is confirmed that nothing contained in these Rules
empowers a Branch or any other person, committee, group or body of persons to
authorise, endorse, call or take industrial action without there being a statutory ballot
and compliance in all other respects with the requirements of Part V of the Trade
Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as amended or replaced from
time to time.