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

[Weetrogg2]

It really does baffle me as to why any union would sign an agreement with any employer before a proper legal judgment has been made.

As for the cost argument I’m sure most employers in the past would have argued that they couldn’t afford to pay sick pay, holiday pay, maternity pay or the minimum wage but the law compels them too and that is how this issue should have been resolved.

For me the problems with this agreement are so obvious that whoever negotiated it is either completely inept(which judging by these structural revision) is most likely or is wilfully colluding with RM against their own members either way they should seriously consider their positions.

Hopefully the CWU executive will go back to the business and renegotiate but I doubt as TP has already shown he thinks played a blinder and never admits to getting anything wrong and never takes criticism well.

So hopefully all those who have lost out due to this dismal agreement will pursue it to tribunal and then get a proper legal judgment which I would presume make this agreement null and void??

It may well turn out eventually that this agreement is better than what the law will decide but I doubt it. Why the CWU didn’t just let go to tribunal I don’t know, people would have still moaned about the decision and no doubt there would still have been people who lost out but most people, although they don’t always agree with it accept the law and the union could then have tried to get an agreement that builds on and improves on the legal minimum.

[Wolf91]

Might not be a lot of money to Old Tel. Where £50 wouldn’t even buy him his breakfast.
Absolutely disgraceful attitude.

[steve1873]

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.

Point no. 9.

Why is there less a case for this on sick?

I could work 10 hours or more every week for the qualifying period and have an accident at work during the last month that means I'm unable to achieve the criteria through no fault of my own and thus the overtime for the entire qualifying period is null and voided. How can fair minded person, least of all a trade unionist, argue that is a fair deal?

[Woody Guthrie]

Why is there less a case for this on sick?

Because there is a culture in the business and bought into by the union that anyone who is sick is a shirker robbing the business of a future.

We've had two examples of this recently instigated by the business and parroted by "the union"

The revisions failed because of staff absences.

A decent pay deal is unaffordable because we have such high absence costs.

It's a typical divide and conquer technique because nobody thinks they are the target and everyone thinks they know someone who is.

Let's not concern ourselves with the reasons for such high absence rates, move along nothing to see.

It's almost as if both parties are about to throw the attendance agreement under a bus.......