London MC's A statement by the London Divisional Committee

[POSTMAN]

Dear Colleague

London Mail Centre update

We understand that Royal Mail is gearing up to announce their preferred Mail Centre plan for London.

Royal Mail’s final plan does not alter from their original plan.

Therefore they still intend to close Rathbone Place, reduce the full time staffing in the Mount by 55%, close South London Mail Centre, close East London Mail Centre and remove the international work to the HWDC

Royal Mail’s decision is despite the fact that an independent report states that Royal Mail’s plan is not only risky but is likely to fail. The independent report recommends that two Mail Centres are kept open.

Royal Mail’s decision has also come despite further meetings facilitated by Roger Poole, the independent Chair and Peter Harwood from ACAS, involving National as well as Regional Management and CWU.

The CWU believe that Royal Mail’s decision is not in line with the terms of the Business Transformation National Agreement.

In fact, the CWU believe that not only will quality suffer but it will in our opinion lead to compulsory redundancies and compulsory transfers.

Royal Mail’s peoples plan deals with the closure of London Mail Centres differently than any other Mail Centre closure ever. In fact their plan means no one is safe whether they are currently in the Mount, South or East London. In simplistic terms their plans for dealing with the surplus people do not add up.

The CWU has put forward an alternative plan which would mean that Royal Mail’s preferred option would be stood down. The CWU’s proposals are fully within the terms of the National Agreement.

We will be supplying further details of why Royal Mail’s plans are unacceptable in due course. Remember, regardless of whether you work full time, part time, in delivery, distribution or processing, you will be affected by Royal Mail’s plan.

However, all members should be under no misunderstanding that Royal Mail’s preferred option for London is unacceptable and will not be supported by the CWU at any level.

The CWU supports the 2010 Business Transformation Agreement within which the overarching objective is to avoid compulsory redundancies.

It is the CWU’s belief that Royal Mail’s plan for London will lead to compulsory redundancies. The CWU will therefore oppose Royal Mail’s plan by all means at our disposal.

We will supply you with further information in due course.

A statement by the London Divisional Committee

[Dogs of War]

Who cares what the CWU think, Royal Mail will do what they like.

[POSTMAN]

London Mail Centre Closures

21st March 2011

Responding to Royal Mail's announcement this evening (Monday) on plans to close two mail centres in London, CWU warns that compulsory redundancies look inevitable unless the company returns to talks.

CWU spokesperson said: "We don't believe that the closure of two major mail centres in London can be managed without compulsory redundancies. We also believe that Royal Mail's announcement is not in accordance with the existing national agreements we have with the company.

"In 2010 Royal Mail accepted that the overarching objective of business transformation was to avoid compulsory redundancies. Given the number of staff in London, today's announcement threatens this commitment. We have tabled alternative proposals are insisting that Royal Mail returns to talks to resolve this issue."

http://www.cwu.org/news/archive/london- ... sures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[deadbox]

Don't worry, the CWU will call a ballot, win the ballot, we'll lose 8 days pay, then we'll have the "deal of the century"

[hans solo]

dont think we comes into it but london

[iceman1277]

dont think we comes into it but london

time to give up the cwu and save me money

[steven100]

You won't get me striking, our great union got a mince deal voted through. Still pay my subs but don't have any faith at the top. Ward and Hayes should go!!!

[andy2007]

You're right there! But we need to try to get a rule change, if we're going to get rid of them. At the moment, it's very difficult to get anyone else nominated. But if we could get that changed, and have a vote of no confidence in them. Then we'll have a chance of salvaging the CWU, and what's left of our service and T&Cs.

The fact that he won the "election", as he claims, unopposed. Which is a fallicy, as no election took place. Was because the rules make it so hard for anyone else to be nominated (nominations from a minimum of 5 Branches required despite it being a National election), and NOT because he's popular. In fact, just a short time on here, will show you just how little confidence people have in him.

[Tman]

Blame the Pie-eating ex-Postie all you like, but you think RM would have acted any differently with someone else in that union position?

[steven100]

We could go for a vote of no confidence but RM management would have a field day.

[forestbodd]

if we had all done our jobs to the book we would have to set people on not get rid running around so we can get to our second jobs

[daveyeff]

You're right there! But we need to try to get a rule change, if we're going to get rid of them. At the moment, it's very difficult to get anyone else nominated. But if we could get that changed, and have a vote of no confidence in them. Then we'll have a chance of salvaging the CWU, and what's left of our service and T&Cs.

The fact that he won the "election", as he claims, unopposed. Which is a fallicy, as no election took place. Was because the rules make it so hard for anyone else to be nominated (nominations from a minimum of 5 Branches required despite it being a National election), and NOT because he's popular. In fact, just a short time on here, will show you just how little confidence people have in him.

HE IS A BERKLEY HUNT

[andy2007]

Blame the Pie-eating ex-Postie all you like, but you think RM would have acted any differently with someone else in that union position?

At the very least. Somone else, wouldn't have fallen for the "let us catch up some of the backlog, then we'll talk" more than once. So instead of dragging out disputes longer than neccessary, we'd have had RM in a far weaker position, in a lot shorter time. Then we could have had better deals, without all the ambiguity. Which as we've all seen, has been abused, time and again.

[Tman]

So you think that the CWU is a one-man organisation,and Ward wouldn't consult other officials before making agreements, then?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

So you think that the CWU is a one-man organisation,and Ward wouldn't consult other officials before making agreements, then?

Only 1 man can lead, he has the responsibility for making the decisions right or wrong . Yes he will consult and agree plans and actions, and he has to stay within the Unions rules and decisions, but ultimately it all falls on his shoulders, that's why he gets the big bucks. If he really disagreed with the PEC or thought that something was wrong then he could highlight that by whatever action he thought was necessary. Thats the difference between being a good leader or just someone filling a position as a leader, you take on all the responsibility for the decisions you make.

Blame the Pie-eating ex-Postie all you like, but you think RM would have acted any differently with someone else in that union position?

Well Hayes did when he moved against Keggie, and the Way Forward (IIRC).