Hi,
I need some authentic advice about a situation arises in my office. I am a CSS operator and moved from the mail centre to MPU when the machines goes out. Along with some of the processing staff 5 delivery people also got the job and moved to nights. Now the office requires to cut 2 duties and they saying seniority will be counted based on how long u r with the business. This is a shock to me as I was on nights for about 10 years and someone just joined nights a year ago and want to knock me out from my job because of his general seniority.
As far as I am concern, if there is a job cut priority goes to the person who stays longer on the shift. This is how it works while I was on the mail centre according to MTSF agreement. However, they keep saying MTSF doesn't work for delivery /MPU.
I am devasted as my union rep is also misleading me telling purely general seniority works here.
I need advice from someone holding a higher position on my union.
Thank u very much.
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
CSS operator job cuts
-
Gold Fox
- Posts: 313
- Joined: 06 Jun 2014, 20:50
- Gender: Female
CSS operator job cuts
Sorry friend...... seniority counts.
-
TrueBlueTerrier
- FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 72675
- Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
- Gender: Male
- Location: On my couch
CSS operator job cuts
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 26&t=38100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
dingo wrote:No a person with a shift allowance can only select a job with the same allowance. If the duty is an early duty which does not attract an allowance than this will be done on pure seniority and MTSF 2 will not apply. Of course, if someone on a late shift allowance decides to sign for an early when there are enough late duties available they will not receive pay protection as it will be deemed a voluntary move.swoosta wrote:If someone gets a shift allowance and picks a job without allowance does he pick ahead of those already with no allowance?
Now MTSF 2 does say that the resign should be carried out based on how long individuals have been on shift. However as Royal Mail cannot track back past 2000 when shift allowances came in and replaced NDA, it can be argued and negotiated that it should be purely shift seniority.
Other things to considered , if a duty is a 10.00 finish and attracts the higher allowance, then MTSF 2 states that those in receipt of the full allowance would sign first for these duties, however, those duties who finish at 20:00 and receive the smaller shift allowance will not be allowed to sign for the later shift until all the existing 22:00 duty holders have signed.
Of course, those in receipt of TPM allowances will get the first opportunity to sign for TPM duties in line with MTSF 2.
In the main MTSF effects, mail centres and RDCs as the main bulk of shift allowances are now concentrated there. In delivery offices the 0500, 05:30 is now in the delivery supplement and the amount of night duties outside of the walk sequencing operators have reduced significantly since the introduction of one delivery and the automation. However, if you do have dawn shifts or night duties in a delivery office when you come to resign these will be ringfenced and signed first by individuals with these allowances first.
MTSF 2 came in under the Pay and Major Change agreement in 2003.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.