Advertising of duties

Dayman! · Post by **Dayman!** » 17 Feb 2017, 22:54

I've seen a lot of people on here mentioning duties being advertised within their office. Where I am this is something that has never happened when somebody has left.
Usually the job is covered for a few months then given to someone pt who has been in the office a year or less, which is obviously very convenient for management.

What should happen in this scenario?
Also, can a duty which has been ft for years become ring fenced for pt when only the indoor work has changed or should pt posties have to go through being reserves as well?

Post by **POSTMAN** » 17 Feb 2017, 23:24

Way forward agreement

14.4 Where a full-time post is advertised internally, it will be available to all full-time employees and part-time employees, who have opted for full-time employment, in that resourcing unit. The posts will be filled on the basis of ‘most senior individual’. Where a part-time post is advertised internally, it will be available to all employees as above and filled in the same way.

14.5 The resulting vacancy will be temporarily filled by a reserve, a surplus employee, a transferee from within the wider resourcing area or another resourcing area or by direct recruitment in line with the process above.

14.6 When the number of consequential vacancies in the resourcing unit reaches 5%, or after a period of six months following the last such exercise (if earlier), the posts will be advertised in the resourcing unit, en bloc and filled on the basis of seniority. If this results in any further vacancies, these will be filled, using the same process as above.

bo72 · Post by **bo72** » 18 Feb 2017, 18:55

Can someone please clarify? Does this mean that in a revision all jobs should be available to pick by both full-time and part-time staff irrespective of whether the jobs are full-time or part-time duties and allocated purely on seniority? The reason I ask is because we have recently had a revision at my office and full-time duties were ringfenced for full-time staff and part-time duties were ringfenced for part-time staff. This now means there are part-time staff with there own duties who have far less seniority than some full-time reserves.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 18 Feb 2017, 19:13

bo72 wrote:Can someone please clarify? Does this mean that in a revision all jobs should be available to pick by both full-time and part-time staff irrespective of whether the jobs are full-time or part-time duties and allocated purely on seniority?

No the above applies for single duties not whole revisions and repicks.

bo72 wrote:The reason I ask is because we have recently had a revision at my office and full-time duties were ringfenced for full-time staff and part-time duties were ringfenced for part-time staff. This now means there are part-time staff with there own duties who have far less seniority than some full-time reserves.

A FT could pick a PT duty, as they can for the advertised ones above, but they then become voluntary part time. So in essence all duties are open to the FTs, just that if they wish to retain a FT wage they may end up as reserves if they are the only FT duties left.

To clarify, this is in Units such as mine, where the Duties are tagged as FT/PT. In other units the duties aren't designated as FT/PT the actual OPGs are.

bo72 · Post by **bo72** » 18 Feb 2017, 19:43

I see. This system of full and part-time duties seems to be watering down the seniority system. Jobs are now allocated not simply on seniority but also according to the type of contract the candidate has.

Dayman! · Post by **Dayman!** » 18 Feb 2017, 20:25

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
A FT could pick a PT duty, as they can for the advertised ones above, but they then become voluntary part time. So in essence all duties are open to the FTs, just that if they wish to retain a FT wage they may end up as reserves if they are the only FT duties left.

To clarify, this is in Units such as mine, where the Duties are tagged as FT/PT. In other units the duties aren't designated as FT/PT the actual OPGs are.

So if the actual delivery element of the duty is considered FT with only the indoor work being less, it should be open to anyone, since anyone PT could do their lesser indoor work on any duty?

Post by **greengiant** » 18 Feb 2017, 20:51

Or someone applies for a part time duty, doesn't like it after a few days, gets to pick a different part time duty, and the original vacancy is still empty, and getting lapsed daily...

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 19 Feb 2017, 14:22

Dayman! wrote:
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
A FT could pick a PT duty, as they can for the advertised ones above, but they then become voluntary part time. So, in essence, all duties are open to the FTs, just that if they wish to retain a FT wage they may end up as reserves if they are the only FT duties left.

To clarify, this is in Units such as mine, where the Duties are tagged as FT/PT. In other units, the duties aren't designated as FT/PT the actual OPGs are.
So if the actual delivery element of the duty is considered FT with only the indoor work being less, it should be open to anyone, since anyone PT could do their lesser indoor work on any duty?

That wouldn't work in my office because we have 5 different sections by postcode working separately within the same office. If everyone was allowed to apply for any duty in seniority order and then the duty becomes FT because the OPG holds that contract, that could mean in theory a whole section being part time, but no one having the right contract to do the IPS and other indoor work.

However, with P&L in an office, you have the added complication of needing at least 1 driver per pair. That's the real reason why seniority is being seen as weakening when in reality its the other way round.

New starters have the skills to fill every P&L duty as a walker or driver, however, a substantial amount of senior posties can't (or don't want to) drive for Royal Mail. Whoever you blame, if you can't drive or you choose not to, you are automatically unavailable for 50% of the park and loops duties.

If you have less choice of duties, there is a greater chance you will become a reserve, its simple maths.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 19 Feb 2017, 15:44

The obvious problem with an open repick is that the majority of senior staff are full-time.
If you pick purely on seniority all the full-time staff will have duties and all the part-time staff will be reserves.
There just isn't enough indoor work to justify that.
You need two lists for a full repick, how you do it should be subject to a members vote, not down to the whim of an office manager.

Ringer21 · Post by **Ringer21** » 20 Feb 2017, 15:17

We've just had a repick in our office but now other rounds have become available due to staff leaving the rounds are are being advertised but we're told that if you've just had a pick you have to stick on the round for 12 months before you can apply for another is this the case

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 20 Feb 2017, 15:57

No, that only applies to a voluntary change of duty outside a major repick, so for instance if someone leaves and you pick their duty then a couple of months later someone else leaves and another duty is advertised you can't have another go. A full repick is not a voluntary change of duty. It's driven by major change.

postslippete · Post by **postslippete** » 20 Feb 2017, 17:42

We have had some duties advertised however there are still a few guys in our office that are still sat on "vacant" duties and have been sitting on them for years - irrespective of seniority.

And it has nothing to do with being unable or unwilling to drive and it has absolutely everything to do with either being a Union rep which is not a bad thing except for the fact that they have a tendency to agree everything for the managers!! and/or staff with an apparent but no obvious 'disability'

But we are not allowed to talk about that even though I suspect their 'disability' could and should be reviewed......

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 20 Feb 2017, 18:14

Yes anyone falling under the Equality Act should be reviewed continually even if it falls under the auspices of Duty of Care.

It doesn't change the fact that colleagues should not be privy to the conditions or its effects, but that's not down to the EA in total, its down to other acts like the Data Protection Act, Acces to Medical reports acts and just the basic right of Privacy.

That means it may well have been reviewed but you, me and our colleagues don't need to know if it has, in fact it may illegal if we are told it has or hasn't.

Its not up to us to decide if someone is under the EA Act for fallacious reasons, or for us to decide if it should apply, we ain't lawyers and we should tread carefully in this area. People on better pay and better trained than either us, or the managers, have made the decision, Leave up to them and the managers to do what they should do, they have the legal responsibility not us.