Compulsory Redundancies

[Postee2]

This is now a serious concern. For anybody who wishes to be made voluntary redundant that is fine, but otherwise there are some serious questions to be asked.
Do we have any kind of clarity on how people could be made redundant while agency workers are involved ?
Also, I believe that before anybody can be forced out, all other options have to be exhausted first such as redeployment, or a different duty where possible ?
Royal Mail in my opinion can not have it both ways - ie claiming that the work is unskilled but then selecting people for redundancy based on "skills". Apart from driving most OPG Grade jobs can be undertaken by anybody with a day or 2 training and often not even that. Many agency workers are given very basic training for some jobs now classed as skilled and any permanent member of staff could be trained in the same way to move to a different role.
Can the union please offer some clarity on any of this ? This is a very serious situation and proper, concrete advice rather than motivational gestures is required for peace of mind.

[pieoftheday]

It's of great concern to me also, none driver,over 30 years service. I doubt we'd get a sufficient answer on here, might be better to ask CWU HQ?

[Postee2]

After a little bit of research I found this on a HR Website :

"If you make permanent employees redundant while retaining agency staff in your business to carry out the same or similar work, it raises the question of whether or not the redundancies are genuine or necessary.

You will need to demonstrate that you require fewer people to carry out this type of work, and this could be difficult if you continue to use agency workers. If you can demonstrate that the agency workers are only used in specific circumstances, perhaps where there is a limited requirement for certain work to be carried out short-term and that your permanent employees are not required in those roles as part of the long-term plans for the business, you could justify redundancies on that basis.

Remember, if you have 20 or more people being made redundant, you will need to consult for at least 30 days, and if it’s 100 or more staff, a minimum of 45 days consultation is required.

The agency question may come up during a consultation, so you will need to consider this when responding to people during your consultation meetings."

https://www.thehrbooth.co.uk/blog/hr-ne ... lar-roles/

[pieoftheday]

The part that mentions long term plans isnt good for none drivers as it does seem RM arnt interested in letters long term

[Postee2]

Somebody has to deliver the letters. We've had a lot of claims made but very little substance as yet.
We just need some clarity.
Can the union please give us some clarity.
We.keep being told we will win but what does that mean.
Does it mean there will be zero Compulsory redundancies and how will that be achieved please.

[2yearpostie]

Honestly, there wont be any unless everyone strikes into the new year, We need to have an adult look at whats on offer and think is it better than no job with what financially coming down the road next year.

Yes its not ideal whats being asked of us, but neither is being unemployed with kids to keep warm and feed.

[Surreypostie]

Somebody has to deliver the letters. We've had a lot of claims made but very little substance as yet.
We just need some clarity.
Can the union please give us some clarity.
We.keep being told we will win but what does that mean.
Does it mean there will be zero Compulsory redundancies and how will that be achieved please.

Unfortunately, no matter what people think, the union cannot guarantee anything, all they can do is try and negotiate the best deal they can. As seen, RM or any employer can then, tear them up.

[k979aaa]

Somebody has to deliver the letters. We've had a lot of claims made but very little substance as yet.
We just need some clarity.
Can the union please give us some clarity.
We.keep being told we will win but what does that mean.
Does it mean there will be zero Compulsory redundancies and how will that be achieved please.

Unfortunately, no matter what people think, the union cannot guarantee anything, all they can do is try and negotiate the best deal they can. As seen, RM or any employer can then, tear them up.

Well it is up to us to defend those rights by withdrawing our labour!

[jbo5066]

The part that mentions long term plans isnt good for none drivers as it does seem RM arnt interested in letters long term

Agree, but somebody will have to deliver them - they're not just going to disappear overnight, or within the next 5 years maybe ... If everyone is going to single van duties, then, probably, yes, RM could argue there is no role for non-drivers, but, if they are keeping 2 man vans, then you don't, theoretically, need 2 drivers ...

[pieoftheday]

Well I'll keep my fingers crossed

[qwerty2]

Thousands of us taking them to an industrial tribunal

[k979aaa]

They would have to exhaust all avenues for this to happen including the laying off of agency staff first!

[Splappy_McSplap]

Apart from driving most OPG Grade jobs can be undertaken by anybody with a day or 2 training and often not even that.

...and make a complete arse of it, putting more work onto regular posties who move onto the duties where they have "no access"ed packets for houses for no apparent reason or doorstepped packets, left mail and packets in lobbies, used PDAs incorrectly etc.

Not to mention that getting properly good at sorting walks, knowing all the splits, knowing a street or area from a postcode alone (for when you are sorting packets and all you have is an incorrect address for a street that doesn't exist and a postcode) knowing all the nuances of all of the jobs in your postcode area can take a decade or more...but yeah, unskilled job.

[Corey]

Avoiding redundancies

You should take steps to avoid compulsory redundancies, for example by:

seeking applicants for voluntary redundancy or early retirement
seeking applications from existing staff to work flexibly
laying off self-employed contractors and freelancers
not using casual labour
restricting recruitment
reducing or banning overtime
filling vacancies elsewhere in the business with existing employees.

From the Government website , me thinks there’s going to be thousands of tribunals if they are replacing existing staff with casual workers.

[vmaxv4]

After a little bit of research I found this on a HR Website :

"If you make permanent employees redundant while retaining agency staff in your business to carry out the same or similar work, it raises the question of whether or not the redundancies are genuine or necessary.

You will need to demonstrate that you require fewer people to carry out this type of work, and this could be difficult if you continue to use agency workers. If you can demonstrate that the agency workers are only used in specific circumstances, perhaps where there is a limited requirement for certain work to be carried out short-term and that your permanent employees are not required in those roles as part of the long-term plans for the business, you could justify redundancies on that basis.

Remember, if you have 20 or more people being made redundant, you will need to consult for at least 30 days, and if it’s 100 or more staff, a minimum of 45 days consultation is required.

The agency question may come up during a consultation, so you will need to consider this when responding to people during your consultation meetings."

https://www.thehrbooth.co.uk/blog/hr-ne ... lar-roles/

There was a reference on a this topic not that long ago where the Employment Law Firm quoted as you have above. Another poster supplied that same link supposedly from the same Law firm as RM are using about Compulsory Redundancy in this dispute.
Unfortunately I have tried but unable to reference that post… Maybe someone can find it for you