Royal Mail chiefs accused of 'denial'

[TrueBlueTerrier]

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

Assistant secretary Terry Pullinger has accused Royal Mail chiefs of being "in denial" over the problems in the industry in a hard-hitting letter earlier this week.


Terry expressed frustration at the difficulties caused by the over-centralisation of decision-making.

In his 'open letter', he describes Mr Cieslik, the process and collection director for Royal Mail, as someone with a "fresh mind" and an "open and imaginative thought process prepared to look at our operation, warts and all, and develop solutions."

But, Terry complains, every significant decision has to be referred to the "centre police" who "micro-manage this industry," which is putting obstacles in the way of efforts to resolve substantial mail centre issues.

The letter continues: "You invite me to more meetings and I would not be surprised if you even have to clear those invitations with the 'centre police', who will ensure that there is a presence at such meetings to check that set 'centre' parameters are not breeched, it's becoming that predictable."


This exchange takes place against the backdrop of a rapidly changing postal industry, in which the CWU is fighting to protect members' jobs, terms and conditions and is making repeated efforts to work with the company to develop new products and services, particularly in areas of market growth.

Terry initially wrote to the Mr Cieslik, earlier this month, setting out his concerns on a wide range of issues and setting out the background to the problems.

He explained that the strongly held view of CWU members that the mail centre rationalisation process had "evolved to be perceived as a process that effectively walks the CWU through to a totally preconceived outcome" had led to a decision by the joint national deployment group (NDG) to task him and Royal Mail director Steve Cameron with producing a document strengthening the process and allaying perception.

The joint document produced by them was, Terry continued, personally promoted by him to members "as a genuine change in approach that was notionally different and significant."


But there remains an apparent assumption by the company that "this is a consultation process only, as opposed to a mutual-interest consensus building process," he points out, adding: "The key aspect of the agreement, the one that suggests that the final decisions are not made until the latter stages of the process, is in my opinion totally insincere."

Explaining why he responded to Mr Cieslik through an 'open letter', Terry pointed out: "It's important that our members are fully informed of the strenuous efforts their representatives are making to resolve these ongoing issues.

"We are consistent in our openness and transparency - but unfortunately, even when a new director such as Mr Cieslik comes along and insists that he wants to genuinely resolve problem issues, this is being undermined by people at the top who seem only concerned with preparing this company for privatisation."

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Jeremy Cieslik
P&C Director
Royal Mail
Wheatstone House
Wheatstone Road
Dorcan
Swindon
SN3 5XX




Terry Pullinger
Assistant Secretary
CWU
Headquarters
150 The Broadway
Wimbledon
SW19 1RX

15 November 2012


Dear Terry,

Thank you for your letter of 9 November. 

We should meet very soon so that we can deal with the issues you raise in some detail. We remain committed to both the Mail Centre Rationalisation Agreement of 2010 and to the Joint Statement on Interpretation, Learning and Improvements to the Mail Centre Rationalisation Agreement from earlier this year.  

I am sorry you feel that in briefing you in advance of our intention to begin further consultations, we were not acting in line with the agreement. We have always sought to give prior notice of future reviews to you and your predecessors, in line with paragraph 5.2 of the Rationalisation Agreement and this has previously been welcomed as an indication of trust and confidence. Our early thinking about Ipswich and Portsmouth should not come as a surprise to you, as it has been included in the pack of information circulated for recent Shadow Ops Executive meetings. We raised it last week to be sure you were aware of it as a future agenda item, so you have the opportunity to prepare and actively engage in deriving the optimum business decision.

The Mail Centre Programme from the outset recognised the need to streamline our operation. Declining letter volumes and growing competition, meant we had about twice as many Mail Centres as we needed. Our approach has been to undertake reviews of each Mail Centre in a measured and professional way.

We want to be open and transparent with you and to fully consult on all these matters in line with our agreements. As with all major initiatives, there is a stage when our thinking about a particular office is not fully formulated into a proposal, that we are ready to share generally with our customers, the public and all our employees, but we do want to involve you as early as possible as we value any input you have to make. It is not the case that decisions are made before we begin the process, which has been specifically designed for our proposals to be tested and if not robust or where there are better options, to be changed.

The Operations Modernisation Programme focuses on our total product portfolio pipeline; letters, large letters and parcels, to maximise customer recognised value. A significant proportion of our expenditure has been to create a world class parcels company, with investment in optimised Mail Centres and the Logistics Network, PDA’s and Delivery Methods. Further investment is planned so that Royal Mail is best placed to continue to grow in the parcels market, as shared on the day.

I want to reassure you that the process agreed is still fit for purpose and we are responsible for ensuring the people elements are resolved to our mutual satisfaction. Based on my personal experience within blue chip companies, I remain committed to working in partnership with yourself and the CWU, with openness, transparency and active engagement to shape and form Royal Mails future. That’s why I expanded the scope of the NPG to give greater visibility on our future product and process designs. I remain committed to this approach because it works!

In terms of what happens next, now that people in affected offices are aware of our proposal, we owe it to them to start to explain what it would mean for them and to get into the detail of whether there are any feasible alternatives.  You have raised some broader questions about quality and the impact of changes in traffic mix, which I am very happy to discuss with you.  We have a major investment programme to manage the growth in parcels, as we both agree this is vital to our future. We will not pursue any rationalisation proposal if it puts at risk our long term quality of service for our customers.

In the meantime it’s important that the representatives in Portsmouth and Ipswich bring their full input to the consultations as these things are always better done together. For our part we will continue to invite and share all relevant information as per our joint agreement in BT2010.

My secretary will arrange a date for us to meet.


Yours Sincerely




Jeremy Cieslik
Process & Collections Director

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Dear Jeremy

THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL MAIL CENTRE RATIONALISATION FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

I fully appreciate that you are relatively new to the business and certainly new to the processes of the above mentioned agreement, equally from a practical sense this is also the first time that I have been through the process. However, I do have some historical context which may be useful to you and I therefore am sharing that with you both below and in the attached annexes to this open letter.

At the CWU 2011 Annual Conference Motion 51 (copy attached as annex A) was debated and carried. The motion was prompted by people that had experienced the process and felt that rather than an agreement that was designed to consider potential ideas with no preconceived outcome, it had evolved to be perceived as a process that effectively walks the CWU through to a totally preconceived outcome.

As a consequence of the policy of no further agreement to any Mail Centre reviews discussion took place and resulted in a National Deployment Group meeting to move the issue forward. That meeting produced a resolution that commissioned Steve Cameron and I to agree and produce a document that would strengthen the process and allay the CWU’s prevailing cynicism (copy of that NDG resolution is attached as annex B).

Those subsequent talks produced a Joint Statement (copy attached as annex C), which clearly I personally promoted as a genuine change in approach that was notionally different and significant enough to enable talks to reconvene on this aspect of transformation. There were still those who were cynical that the Joint Statement represented nothing other than the opportunity for the business to announce the consultations on Cambridge, Gloucester and Shrewsbury, with the word consultation translating into they will definitely close.

Of course the proof of the pudding would be in the eating and having now tasted the process as it were I have to agree that the key aspect of the agreement, the one that suggests that the final decisions are not made until the latter stages of the process, is in my opinion totally insincere. Against that backdrop I shall be reporting to the CWU Executive that I do not believe that the Cameron/Pullinger statement has resolved the Union policy set in Motion 51 and that we should not be agreeing any further Mail Centre closures until we have a new resolution which ensures we do indeed have a credible process.

Turning to the National Processing Group (NPG) of the 7th November 2012, and may I say from the outset that our conversations and indeed the wider context that we are jointly giving to the National Processing Group meeting is most welcome. However, the section dealing with the Mail Centre consultations was in my opinion shambolic, insincere, at times insulting and certainly out with the spirit and intent of the attached documentation. Clearly there were elements of your managerial team who grew increasingly frustrated that we should have the audacity to express a view on where we are. To the point that it was emphasised to me that this is a consultation process only, as opposed I assume to a mutual interest consensus building process.

You spoke to me prior to the meeting in regard to your desire for a professional and respectful meeting which avoided any potential for a ‘slanging match’ scenario. I was very proud of the CWU Divisional leads who certainly embraced that approach. However, it was unfortunate that members of your team had clearly not got the memo as it were. Whilst the CWU listened in full to your regional presentations prior to responding, members of your team constantly cut across the CWU Divisional leads as they tried to respond. It does not speak well for the so called ‘new relationship’ if we have to start legislating for general good manners.

From a substance point of view it was evident to me that the ‘Joint Statement’ which sought to strengthen the credibility of this process has failed and that the concept of equal status in respect of people issues, quality of service, performance and finances is indeed a myth. I conclude that the pound note is the strategic god of the managerial approach and that the other elements mentioned pale into insignificance. I clearly do not say that in respect of MTSF terms etc. but rather in the context of those four issues shaping industrial strategy.

I left the NPG meeting bitterly disappointed, angry and feeling foolish that I had genuinely believed we had strengthened the process only to be firmly told by your team in front of my Divisional colleagues, that certainly the National Union role, if not the total role of the Union, in this process is nothing more than the role of the lackey. I have to inform you that I do not accept the mentality evident in your team that my Union’s role is effectively no more than one to help you deploy what you say, regardless of how we and our members feel about it or more importantly disagree with it.

Upon reflection however I have considered that maybe this could present an opportunity, an opportunity to take a breath and reconsider what I now believe to be a flawed processing plan. It is now evident to me that the business transformation plans have actually failed to deliver a transformed business excellently positioned for the future.

The design of our Mail Centre Network, the internal design of our Mail Centres and the automation in which the Royal Mail leadership have chosen to invest all the money available is in my humble opinion totally predicated on declining ‘Letter’ traffic and therefore inconsistent with the changing traffic demographics of the postal industry. That failure to anticipate those changes of declining letters and increasing packets is fundamental to our current problems and I fail to see how blindly pursuing the deployment of a clearly challenged plan is in anyone’s interest, other than those hell bent on perhaps trying to balance the books for privatisation or the satisfaction of the regulator.

Our processing function is in urgent need of reflection, the workplan is not being adhered to, standard operating procedures are not being applied, WCM has created unnecessary costs and kit & equipment anarchy which further complicates standard procedures. Processing is the only function without a modern revisions procedure which is why we have the excessive use of agency and casual resource. Remaining Mail Centres from previous consultations are failing and work is arriving later and later in Delivery Offices, frustrating the ability of that function to deliver on duty configurations consistent with the wider BT Agreement.

Your team announced at the NPG their intention to open consultations on the Ipswich and Portsmouth Mail Centres and then expected me to hold that information for three months, whilst readily admitting that your local managers would be working on the proposal. Apart from that being totally unacceptable to me I believe it is in direct conflict with the agreement. If your managerial teams are working on the future of a Mail Centre three months in advance of the CWU getting involved then that explains why this process is so flawed, you have already made your minds up at 6.1 and any sense that it is a theoretical rather than an actual proposal is clearly false.

You suggest that you now wish to bring these consultations forward well I ask you what difference does it make. The business has decided to close them and our ability to influence that decision is clearly nil in your application of the current agreement, so in my opinion the CWU will have to find other ways to influence the debate.

In closing I hope that you will consider putting on hold your current plans until we have been able to jointly reconsider the relevance of the current plan in the context of the changing postal industry. You have raised the issue of personal integrity and mine will not allow me to continue supporting an insincere process. That is also why this is an open letter and an honest reflection of my position so that no one will be able to accuse me speaking with a forked tongue.

The CWU will cooperate with change but not the wrong change based on the desperate throws of a failing plan simply to accommodate savings at the expense CWU member’s livelihoods and the public we serve.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely


TERRY PULLINGER
ASSISTANT SECRETARY



Comp 51                                                                     

The Postal Executive is instructed to carry out an immediate review of the National Mail Centre Rationalisation Framework Agreement.

The review will include requesting [Joint] written submissions from Local/Area Reps and Divisional Officers of all areas which have losing and receiving offices where a rationalisation has been proposed.

These reports should detail both the strengths and weaknesses of the National Agreement and where representatives believe it could be improved as we take the Business Transformation forward.

Once the submissions have been received the aims of the review will be:

Engage with the employer to secure improvements to the existing agreement.
Identify the areas of the agreement which have fallen short of CWU expectations.
Identify areas and give clear examples where Royal Mail have “mitigated job losses in losing units in the short-term by sensible phasing of work and in the longer term by scoping work to retain where it is cost-effective and meets customer and operational needs and introduced new work”.
Identify where Royal Mail proposals have not dealt with people issues in line with National Agreements.
Examine quality of service and service specification results at gaining offices where a rationalisation of another Mail Centre has taken place, this in order to identify maintenance, improvement or deterioration.
Review the statement and have a full understanding of what “maintain or improve quality of service to the customer in line with our service specification” means in its application and practice.
Identify improvements to the Mail Centre Rationalisation Process which places more emphasis on gaining agreement with the Union on people issues prior to any transfer of work.
Review in its entirety paragraph 6.11 of the agreement to fully satisfy the CWU that this statement is commensurate with gaining agreement rather than employer dictat. 
To determine in Mail Centre closures thus far that economies of scale have been achieved and people issues were dealt with in line with existing agreements.

This list is not exhaustive.

The review will be completed by no later than 1st August 2011. Should this date not be achieved no further agreement to any Regional Mail Centre reviews will be given until the review of this agreement is complete and communicated to Branches.


RESOLUTION TO NDG PROCESS ISSUE

1. An NPG will be diarised for the 13th February, assuming the commitments in paragraph 2 are satisfactorily concluded. At this meeting Royal Mail will advise CWU of its next Mail Centre consultation.

2. Royal Mail and CWU have exchanged process commentary proposals and both parties will prioritise talks to be concluded by Friday 10th February, to combine these into an agreed output document which will incorporate the following:-

Any learning experiences from previous mail centre reviews, including the people elements of the London Agreement.

Any other adjustments required to strengthen the process.

3. On the basis that the NPG goes ahead, it is confirmed that in all previously announced reviews, apart from Hull (which will be discussed in the national MTSF review but which currently is not due to complete until 2015), plus the three due to be announced, the current MTSF (VR plus ETE) terms will apply through to full deployment of any outcome.

This is without prejudice to the national MTSF review, originally due in October 2012, but which the national parties have agreed to bring forward as part of our current talks.



Michael Newby Dave Ward
Royal Mail CWU



Steve Cameron Terry Pullinger
Royal Mail CWU








We are pleased to attach a copy of the Joint Statement we have reached in regard to the review which has recently been jointly undertaken by Royal Mail and CWU on Mail Centre Rationalisation as part of the BT2010 Agreement.

The attached document builds on the feedback and lessons learnt from Royal Mail Managers and CWU Representatives, who have experienced and been involved in the process to date. We believe this improves, strengthens and builds on the good work undertaken thus far and that the clarity it offers will benefit the overall consultation process at both National and Local Level, and will further improve the people processes.

The Joint Statement is a key expression of our principled and mutual interest approach as we move forward with open joint consultation on transformation issues whilst jointly managing the people impacts. Both parties recognise that resolving people issues is fundamental to the success of transformation.

On this basis we shall now be arranging National Processing Group (NPG) meetings to commence consultations on further transformation proposals building in the lessons learnt and contents of this Joint Statement.


Steve Cameron Terry Pullinger
Operations, Process and Assistant Secretary
Programme Director CWU.




ROYAL MAIL AND CWU JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING INTERPRETAION, LEARNING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MAIL CENTRE RATIONALISATION AGREEMENT


It is confirmed that until any National discussions determine differently the principles regarding MTSF (VR and ETE) terms as detailed in the BT 2010 Agreement will be applied consistent with the NDG resolution.

In regard to further consultations an NPG meeting will be arranged for the 13th February 2012, to consider the next three Mail Centre consultations consistent with Para 5.1 of the BT Agreement.

It is accepted that in all Mail Centre reviews people issues will continue to be one of the key priorities with equal status with other priorities. The overarching objective to deliver the transformation in Mail Centres, as elsewhere within the business, will be without recourse to any compulsory redundancies.  The joint aim will be to develop an agreed approach to dealing with people issues in a way that meets this objective via a fully inclusive manpower/operational phasing plan for the whole of the scoped area. Such plans should include current staff profiles, vacancies, earnings expectations, legacy bonus etc, other functional activities. In each case the overriding objective should be to confirm that the changes can be completed without recourse to compulsory redundancies/change to the full-time or part-time status of permanent CWU represented employees who wish to retain their current status, as soon as is practicable in the consultation process.

Royal Mail and CWU will develop joint preference exercises and where ‘Clear Choice’ is used then a joint session will be held between Royal Mail, CWU and the ‘Clear Choice’ provider to explain the roles and responsibilities of all parties in supporting the work to manage the people impact. Good practice from completed schemes should jointly be reviewed and considered. for example, the ‘People 1st’ approach developed in the Midlands.

Both parties agree to ensure that the NPG agenda reflects all aspects of Para 5.1 of the agreement and to review major strategic issues, which will include agenda items from both parties. An early example to be included is an update on Royal Mails future packet strategy. Equally, regular NPG meetings will review progress of current and future consultations.

We have discussed the lessons learned and agreed that the most recent review concluded in the Midlands was a good example of how both Royal Mail and the CWU have worked together and built in lessons learned after each review. Workshops/training sessions will continue to be developed to improve understanding in the following areas:

Traffic profiles
Quality statistics and measurement
Key performance indicators
Manpower planning and financial investment
Modelling
Cost and benefits breakdown information, including VR costs


These sessions will also provide the facility for managers and CWU officials who have been through the process to share their experience and offer potential advice. Both parties are equally committed at National level to review each consultation and continue to build in good practice and lessons learned into future reviews.

All relevant information will be provided via data packs as early as is practicable in the process and supplementary information requests will be provided in a timely manner to allow full and detailed consultation. It is recognised that the anticipated timescales for consultation are influenced by the timing and quality of information exchange and will be adjusted accordingly. Automation information such as kit to be utilised, strategy and its proposed site location, will be part of the initial presentation. The CWU will table its responses in a timely manner and it is re-affirmed that all proposals will be meaningfully considered.

Where new builds are involved the CWU will be consulted and involved in the layout and facilities consistent with current employee and industrial relations commitments and business standards.

Information supplied by Royal Mail should be clearly classified as ‘Commercially Confidential’ or ‘Strictly Confidential’. Other information not marked confidential can be shared. It is recognised that ‘Commercially Confidential’ information may require a non-disclosure agreement to be signed by CWU Representatives.

Both sides recognise that it is important to establish the key individuals for the involvement processes. One Divisional CWU Representative(s) for each of the IR Divisions affected should be appointed by the CWU and remain fully involved throughout the process including Technical Services Representatives, whilst identifying a lead CWU Representative for the overall project. Equally, working groups should be established involving key Area CWU Representatives impacted, either by proposed concentration or de-concentration and ensure that all affected sites are represented and involved from the start. Appropriate release time will be afforded for the analysis of data, preparation, attendance at meetings, learning/training modules and joint activity.

It is recognised that the CWU may seek independent advice to assist them in understanding any proposal and assist in developing any alternative ideas.

It is agreed that such initiatives require a high degree of commitment and participation if the changes are to be delivered smoothly and on time whilst maintaining morale. Therefore regular joint communication where ever possible is considered the best approach and a crucial factor in such an initiative. Joint communications should be agreed and carried out jointly where appropriate.

Whilst joint communication should always be our preferred option of communication, exceptionally for the CWU to operate effectively and democratically it needs the active participation of its members. Therefore the CWU may wish to consult separately with their members. Where this will positively and robustly inform and support the consultation process, reasonable time during working hours will be provided for CWU members to be adequately updated, discuss progress and ratify proposals. Such meetings should only be held with the express agreement from local management in regard to the appropriate time for such meetings to take place, with both parties ensuring the safeguard of customer service and a mutually convenient time which minimises any effect on the operation.

The learning experience and reinforcement detailed in this joint statement holds both parties to high standards with regard to involvement, relationships and trust. Meeting these standards will develop mutual confidence that the resulting decisions will address the key issues detailed in this joint statement. Against that backdrop, once consultation on changes are satisfactorily completed both parties will work together to implement the changes at pace.

Both parties are committed to the BT2010 Agreement for Mail Centre Rationalisation and the continued development of the progress we have jointly made to date to build in lessons learned to future reviews. Furthermore it is jointly recognised that it is crucial to continuously improve the consultation process and the role of the NPG to support our Managers and CWU representatives in jointly developing mutual interest solutions in regard to transformation and the resolution of people’s issues.




Steve Cameron Terry Pullinger
Operations, Process & Programme Director Assistant Secretary
Royal Mail CWU

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Dear Jeremy

NATIONAL MAIL CENTRE RATIONALISATION AGREEMENT

I welcome your letter of response dated the 15th November 2012 regarding the above subject, not because it goes any way to resolving our differences in relation to the above mentioned agreement, but rather because it stands as further evidence of the denial that the leading managers in this industry are in.

I have had the privilege of a number of conversations with you which have left me with an impression of a fresh mind in the business. A person with an open and imaginative thought process prepared to look at our operation, warts and all, and develop solutions in the interest of a genuine plan for the future.

Sadly I do not recognise that same person in your letter, and I believe that anyone who knows you could be forgiven for believing that your letter has either been amended or drafted by the ‘centre police’, who micro manage this industry and view it through rose tinted privatisation glasses.

You invite me to more meetings and I would not be surprised if you even have to clear those invitations with the ‘centre police’, who will ensure that there is a presence at such meetings to check that set ‘centre’ parameters are not breeched, its becoming that predictable.

You state that you value my input, well that certainly was not the case at the recent NPG meeting and I am disappointed that you have not responded on the issue I raised on the behaviour of some of your managerial team. So I can only assume that you condone such behaviour and share their interpretation of the role of the Union in the rationalisation process.

I am happy to meet with you on the following:

Developing a modern revision procedure for Mail Centres.
Establishing agreed performance expectations in processing.
The standardisation of kit and equipment used in Mail Centres.
Eliminating the excessive use of agency and casual resource in Mail Centres by ensuring the correct application of the recent resourcing agreement.
Establishing a genuine audit of the cost and savings of WCM in Mail Centres.
On a genuine national audit of the past rationalisations.
Ensuring the workplan is being adhered to and is providing arrival patterns to deliveries which enable the duty design as detailed in the BT Agreement.
On the processing plan for packets.

I do not have the time however to meet on issues which you have made perfectly clear I have no influence on, such as Mail Centre Rationalisation. As far as I am concerned what time I have available is better spent meeting my colleagues in the divisions and sites where you have indicated your intent to close processing operations, in order that we the CWU can determine how best we can influence such proposals from a different angle.

Against that backdrop I would be grateful if you could make it absolutely clear what you actually wish to discuss when requesting further meetings.

You have asked me to respect your integrity and I request the same of you, so please spare me the public face statements on the packet strategy when you and I both know I made valid points in my previous letter, and that their growth is changing and challenging the operational footprint in both Mail Centres and Delivery Offices.

In closing I have to reiterate my view that the Mail Centre Rationalisation Agreement has been permanently damaged by the last NPG and will need to be amended or re-negotiated before we can work jointly on such matters again.

Please note that I shall be sharing your response and this reply with my CWU colleagues.

Yours sincerely


TERRY PULLINGER
ASSISTANT SECRETARY