Royal Mail issued safety footwear

[Mazz thematic]

Quick question but do you have to wear royal mail issued safety footwear or can you get your own if you don’t have a medical condition

[zipmeister]

You can wear your own as long as they are dark coloured and fit for purpose.

[redlen]

Just for my knowledge and not being critical, but

Where does it state officially you can wear your own none issued "SAFETY" footwear?

Royal Mail issue uniform standards and expects you to wear them as part of the uniform code. The only exception will be if you provide a medical certificate from a health care professional as a reasonable change.

Wearing no uniform issue opens up the employee to disciplinary and possibly negligence if any negative event might happen

[zipmeister]

Who says OPG's outside of specified area's need to wear "SAFETY" footwear? I dealt with a case several years ago and an OPG was trying to sue RM for damage caused to his feet by non issue of RM footwear, The line manager kept "forgetting" to order the OPG's trainers and the case was not taken up by HQ because the wearing of RM footwear on delivery is not compulsory. Emails were supplied by the team that negotiated the uniform agreements which I have stored somewhere so safe I cannot find them at present.

[redlen]

Not that I do not believe you, as no evidence has been supported to the contrary. What is a matter of record is the Uniform Code and a uniform standard you wear what they provided.

Safety footwear is for loading bay and LGV drivers, not delivery staff

When doing conduct interview, you need a reference source on paper or nothing more than man down the pub Chinese whispers. Management will treat them as such.

The only alternative is a chit from a health care professional in which Royal Mail will reimburse you.

[zipmeister]

Hi
Here is part of the email trail I was sent by HQ during the case.


Thanks for your email of the 21st of August into the Outdoor Department in relation to the Revised National Uniform Agreement, and apologise for the delay in this reply which has been due to my annual leave which crossed over the receipt of your email into the department.

In terms of the Appendix 2, 'Non-compliance with Dress Standards', I can firstly advise that the wording in this part of the agreement is a straightforward uplift from the former and longstanding National Uniform Agreement dated the February 1999 in this regard, with a few minor alterations which do not change the overall position, that being any issues in relation to non-compliance of dress standards (non-PPE items) should be dealt with based on an informal approach in the first and all instances.

Indeed, during our talks on the revised agreement, both parties agreed and accepted that there should be no direct increase in the use of this part of the agreement, both in terms of footwear and other uniform items, as a result of the revised agreement and the new focus which would no doubt result from the agreement being issued.

Thanks for your email of the 21st of August into the Outdoor Department in relation to the Revised National Uniform Agreement, and apologise for the delay in this reply which has been due to my annual leave which crossed over the receipt of your email into the department.

In terms of the Appendix 2, 'Non-compliance with Dress Standards', I can firstly advise that the wording in this part of the agreement is a straightforward uplift from the former and longstanding National Uniform Agreement dated the February 1999 in this regard, with a few minor alterations which do not change the overall position, that being any issues in relation to non-compliance of dress standards (non-PPE items) should be dealt with based on an informal approach in the first and all instances.

Indeed, during our talks on the revised agreement, both parties agreed and accepted that there should be no direct increase in the use of this part of the agreement, both in terms of footwear and other uniform items, as a result of the revised agreement and the new focus which would no doubt result from the agreement being issued.

Therefore, if individual members do not wish to wear Royal Mail footwear, which will also include members who due to medical reasons do not wear standard footwear and are reimbursed as such, then this remains the case as long as it is in keeping with the uniform and the footwear is sensible and sturdy footwear with good grip.

I do understand your concerns in relation to the fact that a high number of our members do not wear Royal Mail issued footwear. Indeed, based on recent figures shared around 25 percent of members which work on delivery do not wear Royal Mail issued footwear, with this number being far higher in relation to indoor duty holders. And whilst, as set out by Dave Joyce in his email of the 23rd of August, the CWU would clearly prefer members to wear standard issue footwear, I believe that increasing the number of members which wear Royal Mail issued footwear is best served by seeking ongoing improvements in the current footwear range and quality, not necessarily by making the wearing of Royal Mail footwear compulsory, outside the requirements of PPE footwear.
Therefore, if individual members do not wish to wear Royal Mail footwear, which will also include members who due to medical reasons do not wear standard footwear and are reimbursed as such, then this remains the case as long as it is in keeping with the uniform and the footwear is sensible and sturdy footwear with good grip.

I do understand your concerns in relation to the fact that a high number of our members do not wear Royal Mail issued footwear. Indeed, based on recent figures shared around 25 percent of members which work on delivery do not wear Royal Mail issued footwear, with this number being far higher in relation to indoor duty holders. And whilst, as set out by Dave Joyce in his email of the 23rd of August, the CWU would clearly prefer members to wear standard issue footwear, I believe that increasing the number of members which wear Royal Mail issued footwear is best served by seeking ongoing improvements in the current footwear range and quality, not necessarily by making the wearing of Royal Mail footwear compulsory, outside the requirements of PPE footwear.

[Dorset Plodder]

Hi
Here is part of the email trail I was sent by HQ during the case.

I do understand your concerns in relation to the fact that a high number of our members do not wear Royal Mail issued footwear. Indeed, based on recent figures shared around 25 percent of members which work on delivery do not wear Royal Mail issued footwear, with this number being far higher in relation to indoor duty holders.

The indoor Duty Holders should be OK for a while now ZM as I expect they got some new slippers for Christmas!

On a serious note an interesting e-mail zipmeister, I'll bear it in mind. This problem normally raises it's ugly head when someone has a trip, or slip, and is injured. Normaly the first question asked is, "Were they wearing RM issued footwear"? Reading this e-mail it doesn't look like that has anything to do with the accident report.

IMO Whatever you fancy wearing you do need a good grip and a protective toecap. I've lost count of the ammount of times I've kicked those bloody metal plates that the gates close against .... Ouch FFS! Nowadays I seem to be twisting my ankle more, slipping off the sides of overgrown paths and stepping in hidden bomb holes! I'd like to se RM develop a lightweight walking boot style with higher ankles (that agrees with me).

[redlen]

Thanks for the email, but that is only from one side as a matter of opinion AND "I believe"

The Royal Mail standards agreement states that uniform issued must be worn.
Considering Footwear is issued as a health and safety policy is self explanatory

Know which version I would follow in avoiding a possible disciplinary as the CWU does not hold your contract of employment


Same old story though from Royal Mail/CWU
You can never get a straight answer, always interpretations

Thanks anyway for the link


Might I ask the date of that email?

[zipmeister]

Sept 2018