This concerns a proposed return of a member of staff who several years ago went away to work as a planner elsewhere before being deemed surplus and subsequently is looking to return to our unit. Having just re-picked duties earlier this year, we have been told that there will be a full re-pick AGAIN if the staff member returns. This has created quite a split in the office as people have chosen their new duties in good faith and just gotten on with it (the vast majority of them being well into the bottom half of the seniority list) are faced with being screwed over again. Most of the staff higher up the list NEVER seem to be happy with their duty and are quite happy to have a re-pick (or at least get to pretend they are going to switch duties). Most of this is besides the point, apologies
So, essentially I'm looking to gauge if this is a common thing to happen, and if the returning staff should be allowed to pick ANY duty they want in line with their seniority (thus likely triggering a repick), or should it be the case that they are given first option of one of the two vacancies that we currently have.
Major change triggers a repick so one person returning to the unit is irrelevant.
Even if you did have a repick, anyone could withdraw their duty from the repick pot if there hasn't been any change to the duty content.
Let them choose from the vacant duties until such time that the grounds for a repick do exist.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
clashcityrocker wrote:Major change triggers a repick so one person returning to the unit is irrelevant. Even if you did have a repick, anyone could withdraw their duty from the repick pot if there hasn't been any change to the duty content.
Let them choose from the vacant duties until such time that the grounds for a repick do exist.
Many thanks for the reply.
Could you give any more information on that one please, in layman terms. Does that mean that someone (and their duty) remove themselves from the repick process as nothing has changed in their eyes?
• Employees whose jobs remain unaffected by the major change will retain them;
Thanks, I get what you are saying now. Ours is a strange case in that NO duties are changing in any way. It's just the return of a pretty senior member of staff who during his time away never got to choose a duty as they were never expected to return. Doesn't seem fair for those at the bottom who will likely lose their duty again if a full re-pick is sanctioned.
There are no grounds for a re-pick.
Nobody has to lose a duty, assuming they are the duty holder.
While the person was away they should still have been attached to your office and they should have been allowed to pick a duty when you last had a re-pick.
That they didn't is an error but allowing a new re-pick to correct that oversight is also an error.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
at our d/o the 10ish least senior ft'ers got removed from their duties and moved to either a cover duty or reserve and their duties given to pt'ers, if they wanted to keep their old duty they had to drop to pt.
there were no change to duties or maybe an odd tweak on a few, it was done to balance the ft/pt ratio on the covers and reserves.
i know 1 duty got given to a pt guy who was less senior to a guy on same hours who wanted it but got refused it?
all done cloak and daggers and done with the consultation of our union rep
clashcityrocker wrote:There are no grounds for a re-pick.
Nobody has to lose a duty, assuming they are the duty holder.
While the person was away they should still have been attached to your office and they should have been allowed to pick a duty when you last had a re-pick.
That they didn't is an error but allowing a new re-pick to correct that oversight is also an error.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I'd be inclined to agree, as far as I'm aware RM didn't even have to offer the guy a position in his original unit although having said that it's pretty much a given that they'll have vacancies. If he's lucky a duty will pop up sooner rather than later.
clashcityrocker wrote:There are no grounds for a re-pick.
Nobody has to lose a duty, assuming they are the duty holder.
While the person was away they should still have been attached to your office and they should have been allowed to pick a duty when you last had a re-pick.
That they didn't is an error but allowing a new re-pick to correct that oversight is also an error.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
This is also my understanding of the Procedure for a re-pick, but as this person is so "SENIOR" and has been withdrawn to cover Mngt work it appears that they are trying to sneak him back in with very little fuss, KICK up as much fuss as possible, get Local rep involved to enter the IR process (Disagreement), if he ain't got the balls contact Area rep, stick together and you should overcome this
An age ago, we used to have a re-signing every 5 years or so, maybe it was a local agreement but it suited us. If this person is coming back after being away for x years then there shouldn't be a re-signing. As he is so senior, he should be allocated a vacant duty and then be able to go for a duty as and when it comes up.
