Terry wrote to Andy-Rico writes back to Terry-Terry writes back to Rico......the Adams family.

[POSTMAN]

rico.jpg

Click on the image to make it bigger.

Dear Rico,

Formal Discussions – CWU Open Letter
Thank you for your letter of 21st November 2019 regarding the above.

I was disappointed that the letter did not go any further than what your colleagues have already stated.

You will have noted from my letter to Andy Good that simply stating that you are willing to begin the process of dialogue is insufficient grounds to commence negotiations on a resolution to the current dispute.

Trust and confidence is at an all-time low and such negotiations would need to be structured and positioned if we are to consider your offer as genuine. Unfortunately your response is no different to that already made by your team publicly that you are willing to commence talks.

In respect of my open letter, I do recognise that sections 5, 6 & 7 now appear to be the subject of more pragmatic dialogue and we of course welcome that, however, the matters covered by 1, 2, 3, & 4 which are fundamental have not been addressed and need to be if we are to begin the process of resolving this dispute.

That said, I once again request a formal response to my open letter and the matters the CWU believe need to be in place in order to create the environment for successful negotiations and dispute resolution.

Against that backdrop the CWU will continue our campaign on the basis that we have not received an adequate response to our open letter, and that despite contact, unfortunately nothing has changed.

Yours sincerely

Terry Pullinger

[POSTMAN]

The letter that started it all...
https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 69&t=93224" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[POSTMAN]

LTB 674/19 CWU Dispute with Royal Mail Group

No. 674/19

21st November 2019



Dear Colleagues,



CWU Dispute with Royal Mail Group

Further to LTB 662/19, please find attached for your information (Appendix 1) an exchange of correspondence that has taken place today between myself and Rico Back, CEO of Royal Mail Group, the content of which is self-explanatory.

This was an opportunity for Rico Back to respond to all of the issues in the CWU’s open letter (sent on 15th November 2019) and to reassure everyone that their public offer of talks was genuine. Unfortunately however he has not grasped that opportunity and has failed to answer any of the significant issues raised by the CWU. We can therefore only assume that his letter is another stunt to try and satisfy the shareholders and investors as RMG published their half yearly results.

Sadly his letter is meaningless and offers no more than what has already been offered. Nothing has changed and we will continue to campaign, appeal the High Court injunction and re-ballot if necessary in defense of our Agreements, our members and this great public service.

You will note that I have again requested a proper formal response which addresses all of the issues in the CWU’s open letter, many of which were External Mediator recommendations.

In light of the above, ‘National Gate Meeting Day’ tomorrow needs to be loud and proud, and as powerful as possible because the business, opinion formers, shareholders and investors need to understand that we will not be moved and we will continue to fight until we achieve an acceptable resolution to this dispute.

Branches and Representatives are asked to give this LTB the widest possible circulation and to ensure that it is brought to the attention of all colleagues in advance of National Gate Meeting Day tomorrow. We shall not be moved.

Any enquiries in relation to the content of this LTB should be addressed to the DGS(P) Department.

Yours sincerely,



Terry Pullinger

Deputy General Secretary (Postal)

19LTB674. CWU Dispute with Royal Mail Group https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-xddjke-jtfltzjh-i/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LTB 674.19 Appendix 1 Correspondence Exchanged between DGSP & R. Back CEO of RMG https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-xddjke-jtfltzjh-d/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

View Online https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-xddjke-jtfltzjh-h/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[clashcityrocker]

Dear Rico - I am sending you a letter.
Dear Terry - thanks for your letter. I am sending you a letter back.
Dear Rico - I don't like the tone of your letter. I am sending you a letter to tell you I don't like it.

Is it all a ploy to get letter volumes back to 2004 levels?
Did they get their xmas stamps early?

[roadrunner bill]

Profits are up... lots of letters being sent by rico to terry... back to terry sending from rico......

[Sugar]

"We have absolutely no plans to be part of the gig economy"

Why do I feel that's not quite truthful Maybe the union can get that in writing in a legal and binding agreement.

"It will mean that there continues to be a job for every one of our colleagues who can and wants to work for Royal Mail"

That comes across as if there's going to be strings attached to a possible new contract, terms and conditions. Veiled hint that an ASDA style TUPE is on the cards for all of us

Walk ownership to rear its ugly head again!

[Deadly]

"It will mean that there continues to be a job for every one of our colleagues who can and wants to work for Royal Mail"

That also jumped out at me, very strange way to word something.

[Woody Guthrie]

I had a German pen pal once.
If Terry is looking for an exchange visit I would suggest he takes a more concillatory tone...and a couple of Kraftwerk CDs.

[Marshamp11]

"We have absolutely no plans to be part of the gig economy"

Why do I feel that's not quite truthful Maybe the union can get that in writing in a legal and binding agreement.

Looking at Rico's letter it looks like it is already in writing and signed by the CEO. Surely thats "Exhibit A, M'Lord".

[Sugar]

"It will mean that there continues to be a job for every one of our colleagues who can and wants to work for Royal Mail"

That also jumped out at me, very strange way to word something.

Yes very strange wording and you could read a lot into it with possible TUPE voluntary redundancies and such like in the near future. The word "can" doesn't bode well as it suggests big changes ahead and changes that would mean some sort of major impact on people's ability to do what they have in mind for us all.

"We have absolutely no plans to be part of the gig economy"

Why do I feel that's not quite truthful Maybe the union can get that in writing in a legal and binding agreement.

Looking at Rico's letter it looks like it is already in writing and signed by the CEO. Surely thats "Exhibit A, M'Lord".

The 4 pillars had a number of signatures on it and look at the mess we are now in!

If letters are expected to drop as his predictions say then you have to wonder if they are going to say that that side of the company has to be hived off to save the rest of the company and keep the USO intact then we do end up back under government rule. Shareholders will not be wanting to use profits from one half of the company to prop up the other failing half long term.

[yellowbelly]

"We have absolutely no plans to be part of the gig economy"

Why do I feel that's not quite truthful Maybe the union can get that in writing in a legal and binding agreement.

Looking at Rico's letter it looks like it is already in writing and signed by the CEO. Surely thats "Exhibit A, M'Lord".

One of the reasons we have dropped ourselves in the mire, is that letters off the back of a ciggy packet and collective agreements are not legally
binding unless it is in writing AND it specifically states in the document that it is intended to be a legally binding contract, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/179" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

179 Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract.

(1)A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—

(a)is in writing, and

(b)contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract.

[Bboingg]

I think that the cwu appeal will be lost on the question - is that the correct way to hold a secret ballot that is acceptable as the standard to be achieved ?
And now can the cwu call a strike (subject to ballot) if turning down an offer of talks without preconditions?

[Woody Guthrie]

And now can the cwu call a strike (subject to ballot) if turning down an offer of talks without preconditions?

The truth is they technically could but won't. It's just tub thumping, a smoke and mirrors distraction to cover up a costly mistake.

If the CWU were a company senior heads would have rolled but unfortunately it's more like an exclusive social club.

We are now in a weaker negotiating position than we would have been without a ballot. That will be reflected in the final solution to this mess. We need to accept that and protect what we can not piss about with empty threats and gestures that are fooling no-one, especially Royal Mail.

[Celgar]

I get the impression the union are placing all their cards on the Labour party either getting a majority or forming a coalition after December 12th. It's highly unlikely either of these scenarios will happen and entirely possible that no party will get a majority .