Average Pay Agreement: Reps Briefing

[clashcityrocker]

I think this would have been a great deal .....about 8 years ago.
Too little. Too late.

[Woody Guthrie]

I think this would have been a great deal .....about 8 years ago.
Too little. Too late.

I agree.
I think people are getting hung up on possible scenarios that are likely to be very rare and ignoring the fact that the biggest problem with this deal is that it should have been concluded at least 5 years ago and the fact that it wasn't is an embarrassment.

It is a bare minimum deal that only just covers the legal liability of the business so seeing various CWU press releases trumpeting it as groundbreaking is cringeworthy.

[world class male]

they were pushed but the cwu went and told us to fight our own battles, as said, it's cringeworthy TP blowing his own trumpet on a ground-breaking deal yet again despite his members losing out on hundreds if not thousands over the previous years in failing it's members for over 7 years
great work terry, give yourself another pat on the back while you say we have our heads buried in the sand a scared of change

[Kaning It]

If you don't have any definition of regular you are effectively saying that someone who works 5hrs a week overtime every week should be paid the same on holiday as someone who works 70hrs for the four pressure weeks at Christmas and doesn't do another hour of overtime all year.

I would humbly suggest that's not what people were fighting for.

It’s an interesting point. But if that person does extra hours every Christmas (because the business needs them to) then why shouldn’t that be part of someone’s holiday pay. The fact the law has changed to pay based on the last 12 months average instead of 12 weeks would suggest the Christmas scenario was intended to be included.

Defining regular is not a necessary step, it’s just desirable for the employer.

This is a business which relies every single week on employees doing overtime. While ever that model (25 hour contract etc) is in place, holiday pay should reflect that.

[Murdoch]

I agree.
I think people are getting hung up on possible scenarios that are likely to be very rare and ignoring the fact that the biggest problem with this deal is that it should have been concluded at least 5 years ago and the fact that it wasn't is an embarrassment.

It is a bare minimum deal that only just covers the legal liability of the business so seeing various CWU press releases trumpeting it as groundbreaking is cringeworthy.

This is about as apt a description as you could get.

It's actually a really good deal for Royal Mail, their qualifying criteria will disqualify a lot of people, a lot of the time.

But, legally it covers their ass, because the Union has agreed with them what is "regular". I think the Union's assessment of what constitutes regular, and a legal ruling on that, would have been very different.

CWU gets outplayed at every turn imo.

[kevbo]

I think this would have been a great deal .....about 8 years ago.
Too little. Too late.

I agree.
I think people are getting hung up on possible scenarios that are likely to be very rare and ignoring the fact that the biggest problem with this deal is that it should have been concluded at least 5 years ago and the fact that it wasn't is an embarrassment.

It is a bare minimum deal that only just covers the legal liability of the business so seeing various CWU press releases trumpeting it as groundbreaking is cringeworthy.

I don't think it's as rare as you think. Lots of people work 3 or 4 hours o/t a week. All it takes is 2 to 3 weeks sickness or annual leave in one month to exclude you from 6 months of entitlement.

[spen]

I agree,, regularly work 20-25 hours over time a week,, my mom passed away earlier this year and after the funeral I went sick for 4 weeks, just couldn't face it,, those 4 weeks just happened to be a calender month so now I lose out on a 6 month back pay period

[kevbo]

Not just backpay this system will be used for any future entitlement as it stands. Royal Mail had previously paid up and set a precedent based on the previous 12 weeks overtime. Remember that before you accept this deal.

[mark02]

We don’t get to vote , just the reps ? So we’ll have to accept it

[kevbo]

We don’t get to vote , just the reps ? So we’ll have to accept it

Really in that case dispute any payment you receive if not happy. Use ACAS to go to tribunal if it comes to that.

[Kaning It]

Not just backpay this system will be used for any future entitlement as it stands. Royal Mail had previously paid up and set a precedent based on the previous 12 weeks overtime. Remember that before you accept this deal.

And that was probably when the law said holiday payments were based on average of last 12 weeks pay. Of course the law now says (and has done since April 2020) that holiday pay should be based on the last 12 months average.

Most employers have a system in place to pay that. RM want to add this artificial definition of ‘regular’ which helps them avoid paying anything in some cases.

I hope the reps who vote do really understand the legislation, the caselaw that has developed around that legislation and the outcomes of The Good Work Plan before they decide to potentially write off their members chances of getting what’s legally due for holiday pay.

[Woody Guthrie]

RM want to add this artificial definition of ‘regular’ which helps them avoid paying anything in some cases.

All employers are using an artificial definition of "regular" because the legal ruling applies only to regular overtime.

The problem is because there is no legal definition they're all using different ones.

Getting kind of bored saying this but RM did not add the need for a definition of regular.

Is their particular definition too harsh and restrictive?, that's a different question but there always had to be a definition of some sorts.

[Kaning It]

RM want to add this artificial definition of ‘regular’ which helps them avoid paying anything in some cases.

All employers are using an artificial definition of "regular" because the legal ruling applies only to regular overtime.

The problem is because there is no legal definition they're all using different ones.

Getting kind of bored saying this but RM did not add the need for a definition of regular.

Is their particular definition too harsh and restrictive?, that's a different question but there always had to be a definition of some sorts.

You still haven’t named these other companies? RM run their business on overtime. Therefore, overtime is regularly paid. They are not a company who might have two busy weeks a year where some staff might do some extra hours. In that scenario those employees don’t rely on overtime as part of their wages. Postman are regularly asked to do overtime, it’s the business model.

It’s already regular with the current RM set up, there doesn’t need to be a definition as it’s how the company is run.

The entire point of holiday pay is so that people are not put off from taking holiday due to receiving less than their normal payment. It’s just wrong to put in a system where it’s possible that someone can work 40/50/60 hours overtime regularly but have a month off following a bereavement and then get basic pay if they want to take a holiday in the following 6 months. It’s Penny pinching at an offensive level.

[HTPostman]

RM want to add this artificial definition of ‘regular’ which helps them avoid paying anything in some cases.

All employers are using an artificial definition of "regular" because the legal ruling applies only to regular overtime.

The problem is because there is no legal definition they're all using different ones.

Getting kind of bored saying this but RM did not add the need for a definition of regular.

Is their particular definition too harsh and restrictive?, that's a different question but there always had to be a definition of some sorts.

You still haven’t named these other companies? RM run their business on overtime. Therefore, overtime is regularly paid. They are not a company who might have two busy weeks a year where some staff might do some extra hours. In that scenario those employees don’t rely on overtime as part of their wages. Postman are regularly asked to do overtime, it’s the business model.

It’s already regular with the current RM set up, there doesn’t need to be a definition as it’s how the company is run.

The entire point of holiday pay is so that people are not put off from taking holiday due to receiving less than their normal payment. It’s just wrong to put in a system where it’s possible that someone can work 40/50/60 hours overtime regularly but have a month off following a bereavement and then get basic pay if they want to take a holiday in the following 6 months. It’s Penny pinching at an offensive level.

I would be a great test case - I’ve done approx 750 days at Royal Mail since starting. Of those 750 days, 749 included overtime above my 5 hour a day contract. There’s no way that’s anything but their business model, it’s not unplanned, it’s not exceptional circumstances. I’m sure there are many others with similar overtime figures.

[wallan]

We don’t get to vote , just the reps ? So we’ll have to accept it

Nothing to stop the REP having an Office Ballot