Bob Gibson to Gary Burgess (Verdans font size 10 but no ! ) kinda strongly worded email

[POSTMAN]

Taken from here http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 60#p732679" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks to Sugar

Dear Gary

One Plan

Following our meeting on Thursday 12th May I promised to write to you confirming the CWU position regarding One Plan.

First of all I would like to thank you for attending the Delivery Reference Group meeting in Bournemouth on the 4th May 2016. I believe your presentation and discussion with the CWU representatives was useful and I have circulated the slides that you used so that they are aware of the message from the centre.

If i now turn to One Plan. I should make it clear from the outset that contrary to some of the messages you may have picked up the position of the CWU is not a declaration of war, nor is it a line in the sand, it is more of a passive position in that we do not feel the need to support it or actively participate in its deployment. The initiative as you have explained is a management initiative and in that sense you have already confirmed that you do not see the need to request CWU concession to its roll out and the deployment of managers into delivery offices (managers who do not fit into the IR Framework I should add). We acknowledge your position and all we are looking for is management’s compliance with all of our national agreements, and nationally agreed joint statements, procedures and terms of reference. Where there are issues in delivery offices that need to be dealt with our CWU representatives will engage in line with our agreements, and we do have agreements that cover all aspects of delivery so we remain comfortable with our position. Where any issues can’t be resolved in the localities then we will expect the IR Framework to be fully utilised. The position of the CWU is as simple as that in terms of our involvement in One Plan.

However I should point out that the delivery office categorisation exercise that you have carried out unilaterally is not one that the CWU recognises and we will therefore reserve our right on this, challenging the impact of this categorisation on any of our working practises and agreements where necessary. To be clear, we will not become involved in dialogue over the actual categorisation itself as that may be seen as legitimising what you have already done and that is not a position we will be taking.

There is also the contentious issue of ‘Continuous Improvement’ and as we have already stated there is no reference to this in any agreement with the CWU covering delivery offices. Once again we acknowledge your position but there will be no support from the CWU on this aspect of One Plan.

In closing I will add that your objective to bring about compliance cannot be on the basis of ‘cherry picking’ it must be consistent across the board and that means no early starts, the taking of meal reliefs, the use of delivery methods, the cessation of cars on delivery, our members being able to take their full annual leave entitlement etc, and the cessation of managers carrying out work proper to OPGs, and on this point we will expect the workload and the A level Tasks to be re integrated into OPG duties via negotiation in the localities.

I hope that the above provides you with a clearer understanding of the CWU position but should you require further clarity on any aspect then please feel free to raise this in any of our meetings.


Yours sincerely,

Bob Gibson
CWU Assistant Secretary – Outdoor

Cc DGSP
Delivery Reference Group

[General Mannerheim]

Oh Now he sends something out the feckin joker.
We've had Mr. no feckin plan in for weeks moving crap about and trying it on.

[Sugar]

Oh Now he sends something out the feckin joker.
We've had Mr. no feckin plan in for weeks moving crap about and trying it on.

You would have thought Gibson et al would have been all over this but no they act more like the fellow at the end of this bulletin.