transfers

korky · Post by **korky** » 11 Mar 2016, 17:31

a job as come up at my nearest office but on less hours, to which i cannot drop to, been told i can't go on my current hours which is fair enough i guess,
but a while since someone moved to our office on f/t hours even though there wasn't a f/t job advertised thus jumping quite a few p/t'ers seniority who want f/t,
nothing against him, he's a great lad, but rep says he asked if they could accommodate him and did, but i'd guess the most senior p/t would be aggrieved if told no full time jobs going here, then week after a kid comes with 5 years or so less service?
apparently they can do this and don't have to offer to promote within, only thing that makes it plausible is RM don't have to pay more in wages in upping someone's hours.
why can they bend the rules for 1 but not for others?

IcanthelpthewayIam · Post by **IcanthelpthewayIam** » 11 Mar 2016, 19:45

way forward agreement is very clear on this, vacancies should be offered internally first before transfers in, rep should have put a disagreement in over it if the part timers were not happy

korky · Post by **korky** » 12 Mar 2016, 04:45

zx135 wrote:way forward agreement is very clear on this, vacancies should be offered internally first before transfers in, rep should have put a disagreement in over it if the part timers were not happy

someone asked to transfer in and it was our own rep who sorted it out with our dom, he told that himself, there were never any f/t jobs advertised internally at all,
only when it was done and dusted did a senior p/t'er ask a question why f/t hours were not offered to anyone here first and rep said that because a few f/t'ers had just left ours he got him in,

basically then, it sounds like our rep chose to ignore our own office staff and the way forward agreement if it is in that, and got him in the back door,
but does it mean internally within the office or within the group?
either way, a f/t job was never advertised.

i've now asked for nearly the same i guess and he's told me he'll ask again (i asked ages ago and got refused) but not to hold my breath, i'd imagine if he did "sort" it out for me there could be someone at that d/o asking "how come he's on more hours than me" which is unfair although there is a job going there in this situation, just not on my current hours.

ted_e_bear · Post by **ted_e_bear** » 12 Mar 2016, 17:04

We've had several full timers arrive at our place when there were no full-time vacancies, they all arrived under a dark cloud from offices where they were either trouble causers or accused of bullying other Postie's etc. we're a soft as s**t office with 90% early starters for free, lots of lapsing when there's no time etc !!!!

korky · Post by **korky** » 12 Mar 2016, 21:49

ted_e_bear wrote:We've had several full timers arrive at our place when there were no full-time vacancies, they all arrived under a dark cloud from offices where they were either trouble causers or accused of bullying other Postie's etc. we're a soft as s**t office with 90% early starters for free, lots of lapsing when there's no time etc !!!!

no beef with this lad, he's a good un, but all the latter you said is true but is irrelevant to this though
it's the principle that our rep worked it privately to suit an individual but hinder others
always thought they should act fairly

korky · Post by **korky** » 18 Mar 2016, 16:00

zx135 wrote:way forward agreement is very clear on this, vacancies should be offered internally first before transfers in, rep should have put a disagreement in over it if the part timers were not happy

just had a response from cwu, they say they followed the right procedure allowing a f/t come in without the need to advertise it within our office, can only guess there's an amendment to the agreement somewhere.
thinking about it, how would any f/t get a transfer if they were supposed to offer any p/t at the office 1st?