RMCtv : Terry Pullinger : "If people do less than eight hours a month - it isn't, it really isn't a lot of money(lost)"

[TrueBlueTerrier]

If it was just 8 hours Terry might have a point.

But if you do 20 hours OT every month except one where you do 7. You lose all of the entitlement for that period. So 8 hours all of sudden turns into 107 hours lost which IS a lot of money.

It is basically an average overtime payment if you exceed 8 hours OT every month payment Its, not an average as recognised by people generally.

If it was the 107 hours would be taken over that 6 month period and averaged out as 4.12 hours per week. But the system decides the average is 0 because of 1 month in the qualifying period.

[yellowbelly]

If it was just 8 hours Terry might have a point.

But if you do 20 hours OT every month except one where you do 7. You lose all of the entitlement for that period. So 8 hours all of sudden turns into 107 hours lost which IS a lot of money.

It is basically an average overtime payment if you exceed 8 hours OT every month payment Its, not an average as recognised by people generally.

If it was the 107 hours would be taken over that 6 month period and averaged out as 4.12 hours per week. But the system decides the average is 0 because of 1 month in the qualifying period.

Unfortunately that 4.12 hours per week equates roughly to the £50 that Tel says doesn't get you very far so you don't need it, meh,
not worth fighting for - probably his subsistence for the day when he goes on a jolly.

[world class male]

If it was just 8 hours Terry might have a point.

But if you do 20 hours OT every month except one where you do 7. You lose all of the entitlement for that period. So 8 hours all of sudden turns into 107 hours lost which IS a lot of money.

It is basically an average overtime payment if you exceed 8 hours OT every month payment Its, not an average as recognised by people generally.

If it was the 107 hours would be taken over that 6 month period and averaged out as 4.12 hours per week. But the system decides the average is 0 because of 1 month in the qualifying period.

Unfortunately that 4.12 hours per week equates roughly to the £50 that Tel says doesn't get you very far so you don't need it, meh,
not worth fighting for - probably his subsistence for the day when he goes on a jolly.

martin walsh will obviously continue to side with those making the decision to vote this deal in which the members were refused a vote on an individual basis, that's so very wrong considering they have been dragging their heels on this for around 7 years, encouraging us to put claims in but without helping, then telling us to withdraw them!
yes they can pat themselves on the back stating 50k members have gained, but what about those who have lost out and too late to claim because you allowed a deal to pass on back pay that the terms were also factored in without knowledge of the qualifying criteria ?
the cwu can feck off from now on regarding this matter, i'm putting an ET claim in every time from now on
the whole leadership group needs to take a long hard look at themselves and decide who's side they are on because it certainly doesn't look like it's ours on many more issues too.

i'm still waiting on mr walsh to reply on the 8hrs p/m if you're on leave for 2 or 3 in that month?

[Weetrogg2]

Unfortunately it seems pretty obvious that senior CWU officials are going to try and continue to ‘polish this turd’ of an agreement.

It appears that TP and anybody else involved in negotiating this agreement genuinely do not see anything wrong with it or why people are so angered by it.

I have spoke to people who have been told all sorts of by branch officials ranging from ‘it was this or nothing’ to ‘because it has been agreed by the CWU it will cost around £1500 to take it to tribunal’ and the old favourite‘it’s better than what any other worker’s get’

Another reason I’m furious with this deal is that it was not put to a members vote, in my opinion this was done deliberately in the knowledge that if asked the members would see this deal for what it is - disgraceful - and vote against it.

Another dreadful element of this average holiday pay agreement is that taking holidays is used against you

I’m no legal expert but I reckon if this was America the union would be getting sued for acting against their members best interest.

[Martin Walsh]

Whilst I said I would not get into an a debate over the details of the agreement I do think it is important that I point out the following :

1. Royal Mail was happy without a collective agreement , the ET cases would have eventually meant there would have to be an agreement but that would have still have been a long time in coming.

2. The law is still silent on what is the definition of what is considered as regular overtime on average pay. Clearly if you have a 52 week reference Royal Mail costs are going to be significantly higher as anyone who has done any over time would qualify. Whilst I realise that would be the best scenario, it is something Royal Mail rejected when the CWU proposed this reference period during the negotiations .

3. Royal Mail therefore wanted to understand what their costs would be. Hence why they wanted a definition of what would be considered regular overtime. 2 hours per week or 8 hours per month is not a lot of overtime to reach the criteria but I totally accept there maybe other reasons why an individual did not meet the criteria.

4. There are issues with the 6 month reference period which the CWU are working though for example there were 42 people on jury service for a period of the reference period and therefore did not qualify and that needs amending and a process in the future for anyone on juror service. This is being discussed with the company.

5. Those on Wallington duties who may work their rest week on overtime needs adjusting and that is being worked on.

6. In addition there is a sound argument if you have missed out because your took 3 or 4 weeks leave in the one of the 6 month periods. Can we adjust for the annual leave to ensure your not disadvantaged.

7. There is also a case for those individuals who were told to shield and therefore did not qualify as a result.

8. I think there is a case for anyone who was self isolating as a result of being contact by track and trace.

9. There is less of a case for anyone who has been off sick and that has meant that you did not meet the criteria for average holiday pay.

10. In terms of an individual member ballot , I would support that , however let’s be honest individuals would still argue if it was a yes vote that some members never did overtime and their vote was not fair. In a very similar way to the D2D debate in 2010.

Remember Royal Mail agreed a package which is one of the few average holiday pay agreements out there and knew it was going to cost them 50 million in back pay and a millions in every 6 month period.

Would Royal Mail have accepted a deal where every single hour of overtime worked over 52 weeks would count towards average holiday including the back pay , I don’t think they would have done because that 50 million would have become 80, 90 or 100 million.

I fully understand that individuals want a reference period which they would qualify for but in any agreement there is a negotiation and the employer has to ultimately fund the costs.

[Dexydog]

Here's an idea.
If RM are so worried about paying out more in holiday pay, employ more people to do that work.
Oh, hang on, they don't because it costs them less in pensions, aannual leave, NI, sick pay, and stuffing people with genuine holiday claims.
So I'm sorry Martin, you're defending the indefensible.
The deal is a con pure and simple.
I understand that as a business they will look to save money where possible, this is just another way to do so.
Instead of penalising people on the front line who will have more reason to go sick, and therefore lose out on holiday pay by not qualifying, take a look at how many people they pay to blow up balloons. (See another recent joke of a thread).

[rambo1]

doesnt he understand ? , as i worked 70+ hours in the last 6 months but because i didnt hit 8 HOURS IN ONE OF THE MONTHS i wont get and didnt get jackshit its not f***ing rocket science and how can it be right , so whats saying Oct , Nov , Dec , Jan , Feb , you drag the company out the s**t and do the best for your customers as we do , and do 200 hours o/t but then a dim cuts the o/t in March to less than 8 hours and you would again get jackshit , anyway logged a claim for the 6 month with acas yesterday

Exactly this. You haven't lost 8 hrs, you've lost 70+! The CWU are a complete waste of time. Funny that Dec is a pass month as they know that it would cost them even more money as the extra overtime would go towards more holiday pay. Crooks, the lot of em, management and Union (are they the same thing now)?

[rambo1]

The members will not get a vote on this as this deal amounts to change which the membership cannot accept but don’t worry compliant branches will vote it through on your behalf

24 out of the 100 branches couldn't even be bothered to vote on this deal either, which was still voted in despite the deal not been finalised due to the pass in p9 which starts monday

even if the minimum 8hrs per period remains forever then surely it must be adjusted for when you actually take your leave
i.e. if you take a weeks leave in june then you must do 6hrs that month or if 2wks off you must do 4 to qualify for that period
or is that just too much work for the admin team

That's just too easy mate. That would only require one pack of biscuits and two cups of tea to work out. That's the logical thing to do as I'm guessing most who do a regular 8+ hrs don't do it all in two weeks then have two with no overtime (i.e on holiday). I missed out because of this and many others too.

[HTPostman]

‘ Would Royal Mail have accepted a deal where every single hour of overtime worked over 52 weeks would count towards average holiday including the back pay , I don’t think they would have done’

Unless the Union (supported by a member vote) had pushed RM all the way to the high court. Then we’d have seen what they would and wouldn’t have done. My belief is with top end lawyers acting on behalf of CWU we’d have seen a lot more of what RM would have done.

It’s a sham and Terry’s post agreement comments have been disgraceful. When are the next Union elections again?

[Dexydog]

doesnt he understand ? , as i worked 70+ hours in the last 6 months but because i didnt hit 8 HOURS IN ONE OF THE MONTHS i wont get and didnt get jackshit its not f***ing rocket science and how can it be right , so whats saying Oct , Nov , Dec , Jan , Feb , you drag the company out the s**t and do the best for your customers as we do , and do 200 hours o/t but then a dim cuts the o/t in March to less than 8 hours and you would again get jackshit , anyway logged a claim for the 6 month with acas yesterday

Exactly this. You haven't lost 8 hrs, you've lost 70+! The CWU are a complete waste of time. Funny that Dec is a pass month as they know that it would cost them even more money as the extra overtime would go towards more holiday pay. Crooks, the lot of em, management and Union (are they the same thing now)?

As far as I understand it, December is a pass month but the hours still count in that 6 month period.

[rambo1]

Arh so why don't they show in the app?

[Dexydog]

Arh so why don't they show in the app?

Like I say I could be wrong, this is purely what HR told me.

[world class male]

Here's an idea.
If RM are so worried about paying out more in holiday pay, employ more people to do that work.
Oh, hang on, they don't because it costs them less in pensions, aannual leave, NI, sick pay, and stuffing people with genuine holiday claims.
So I'm sorry Martin, you're defending the indefensible.
The deal is a con pure and simple.
I understand that as a business they will look to save money where possible, this is just another way to do so.
Instead of penalising people on the front line who will have more reason to go sick, and therefore lose out on holiday pay by not qualifying, take a look at how many people they pay to blow up balloons. (See another recent joke of a thread).

to be fair to martin, and at least he posts regularly on here and takes some flak, guessing it's water off a ducks back to him (i'd hope) and if you have been personally offended by any of my comments, i'm sorry.
but he does realise that there are issues that desperately need sorting out in his last post on this issue.
the problem lays with those above sipping champagne think everything is rosy
i'd wish uncle terry would walk into our d/o, he'd probably need the management team to act as bodyguards,
quite a few of his comments this last 2 years are so far off the regular working mans beliefs it's now embarrassing
i told a colleague of the last live youtube was due, his reply was "no thanks because i'll end up smashing my laptop up"
that's the kind of anger not just from him, but quite a few more i know, so heaven knows how many more over the uk
how long can he keep says he's helped 50k posties but forgets he's shafted 1000's of others
he needs to either step down or do a full member vote on this deal, or just scrap it and fully endorse & encourage the process of the employment tribunal route to get what's "legally" correct even if it's less for some but a bit for more

[Pumpernickel]

Clearly if you have a 52 week reference Royal Mail costs are going to be significantly higher as anyone who has done any over time would qualify.

Clearly if someone had only worked 1 hour overtime in the preceeding 12 month period, then their "average" at £12.39ph would equate to 24 pence extra in their holiday pay for the week.

I would bet this messing about over "8 hours every 4 week period in a, set, 6 month timeframe" could cost more in admin than such a loss, but this qualifying setup seems more intended to cut those out who do a lot of regular overtime, but happen upon a single 4 week period of less than 8 hours.

Yes such people can be accommodated by appealing, or dealing with via an adjustment (as with jury service, wallington, etc), but that means even more admin, those affected raising their case, and being successful.

Literally every company I've worked at (unionised or not) for over 20 years already had automatic systems in place to pay average pay for holiday pay (as I've mentioned previously, usually average of the prior 12 weeks wage) that just covers all overtime. The fact that, here, the union has negotiated a system whereby an employee can lose that for the sake of 3 or 4 minutes on one month over a 6 month period just seems... odd to me (and I do mean extremely odd).

I realise you specifically may not be able to answer as to why this is, but questions do need to be asked as it is a strange thing to see (especially as someone who hasn't spent my entire working life at RM, thus having experience of multiple private companies who had this sorted back in the 90's).

[Kaning It]

Whilst I said I would not get into an a debate over the details of the agreement I do think it is important that I point out the following :

1. Royal Mail was happy without a collective agreement , the ET cases would have eventually meant there would have to be an agreement but that would have still have been a long time in coming.

2. The law is still silent on what is the definition of what is considered as regular overtime on average pay. Clearly if you have a 52 week reference Royal Mail costs are going to be significantly higher as anyone who has done any over time would qualify. Whilst I realise that would be the best scenario, it is something Royal Mail rejected when the CWU proposed this reference period during the negotiations .

3. Royal Mail therefore wanted to understand what their costs would be. Hence why they wanted a definition of what would be considered regular overtime. 2 hours per week or 8 hours per month is not a lot of overtime to reach the criteria but I totally accept there maybe other reasons why an individual did not meet the criteria.

4. There are issues with the 6 month reference period which the CWU are working though for example there were 42 people on jury service for a period of the reference period and therefore did not qualify and that needs amending and a process in the future for anyone on juror service. This is being discussed with the company.

5. Those on Wallington duties who may work their rest week on overtime needs adjusting and that is being worked on.

6. In addition there is a sound argument if you have missed out because your took 3 or 4 weeks leave in the one of the 6 month periods. Can we adjust for the annual leave to ensure your not disadvantaged.

7. There is also a case for those individuals who were told to shield and therefore did not qualify as a result.

8. I think there is a case for anyone who was self isolating as a result of being contact by track and trace.

9. There is less of a case for anyone who has been off sick and that has meant that you did not meet the criteria for average holiday pay.

10. In terms of an individual member ballot , I would support that , however let’s be honest individuals would still argue if it was a yes vote that some members never did overtime and their vote was not fair. In a very similar way to the D2D debate in 2010.

Remember Royal Mail agreed a package which is one of the few average holiday pay agreements out there and knew it was going to cost them 50 million in back pay and a millions in every 6 month period.

Would Royal Mail have accepted a deal where every single hour of overtime worked over 52 weeks would count towards average holiday including the back pay , I don’t think they would have done because that 50 million would have become 80, 90 or 100 million.

I fully understand that individuals want a reference period which they would qualify for but in any agreement there is a negotiation and the employer has to ultimately fund the costs.

Its great that someone on CWU's side is answering but...

1. The Employment Tribunal hearing was set for 21 June 2021. The deal was signed off only a couple of weeks earlier. After all the years of waiting, another 2 weeks is hardly 'a long time coming'. Yes RM could have appealed but a first tier result was there for the taking.
2. The law isn't silent. The reference period is 12 months and Employment Tribunals have already said that a bit of overtime every 4 or 5 weeks is sufficiently regular to count. No minimum, no every month for 6 months, just some every 4/5 weeks. At its basic level, holiday pay is required to reflect normal take home pay.
3. RM didn't need a definition to work out what their costs would be. They could have worked it out like most other companies do, over the 12 month reference period without any fake criteria.
4. No s**t there are issues with the 6 month reference period. That should have been highlighted and dealt with by the CWU before making a deal. How was this missed?
5. Wallington I have no idea about.
6. Again, no need for adjustment if the 12 month reference period was used.
7. Again, no need for adjustment if the 12 month reference period was used.
8. Again, no need for adjustment if the 12 month reference period was used.
9. Penalised for being sick. What if that sickness was related to a disability. Potential disability discrimination claim right there.
10.Yes people will always moan but it is as clear as day that the CWU didn't see some of the consequences (or worse, just ignored them) and it is even clearer that lots didn't get a vote and/or did not understand the detail and pitfalls.

Remember RM have got away with and saved millions by not paying holiday pay previously. They were protected by the 2 year backdate rule.

RM would have had no choice but to accept paying what the law requires them to if they lost the Employment Tribunal.

The employer has to fund the costs? That's generally how employment works. Why do you think RM employ people on 25 hour contracts when most of those jobs are really full time (and more)? TO SAVE THEM MONEY.

Its a rubbish deal for posties. Fantastic for RM - are the CWU going back to renegotiate now the unfairness in the system is abundantly clear for all to see or did they tie their own, and their members hands, when they helped RM get this deal?