LTB 818/10 - RE: Temporary Contracts

[POSTMAN]

23 September 2010
LTB 818/10 - RE: Temporary Contracts

No. 818/2010
Ref: PTC/MA/dj/020
Date: 23 September 2010



TO ALL BRANCHES WITH POSTAL MEMBERS

Dear Colleague

RE: Temporary Contracts

Further to LTB 684/10 dated 6th August 2010 and LTB 700/10 dated 13th August 2010 the issue has been raised at the National NDG forum which took place on Wednesday, 22nd September.

Royal Mail have agreed to diarise a number of meetings next week to resolve this matter at the earliest opportunity. Branches may be aware that the business have produced detailed guidelines to HR business partners within each division. These guidelines have not been agreed with CWU HQ and representatives should continue to follow our advice set out in LTB 684/10 which stated that:

"If management are not prepared to adhere to the MTSF agreement, branches are advised to register disagreement and ensure that the status quo is maintained until the full terms of the IR framework are exhausted."

Any enquiries to this LTB should be addressed to Ray Ellis's department, quoting reference PTC/MA/dj/020.


Email address: rellis@cwu.org


Yours sincerely

Ray Ellis
Assistant Secretary

[fishtank]

Any news.......?????

Royal Mail have agreed to diarise a number of meetings next week to resolve this matter at the earliest opportunity.

These meetings took place last week FFS.

[fishtank]

Royal Mail have agreed to diarise a number of meetings next week to resolve this matter at the earliest opportunity.

23 September 2010

[fishtank]

bumpety bump....Anything yet?....

[goldy]

keep bumping it

[TrueBlueTerrier]

LTB 1019/2010 - Fixed Event Contracts

No. 1019/2010
Ref: PTC/RE/dj/020
Date: 19 November 2010




TO ALL BRANCHES WITH POSTAL MEMBERS




Dear Colleague


RE: Fixed Event Contracts



Further to LTBs 684, 700, 818 and 865 which updated our position for fixed event contract employees, we are now in a position to update you.


Royal Mail has agreed that individuals who, at 24th June 2010 had been in employment for more than 2 years and whose fixed term contract had expired will be offered a permanent contract. Conversions to permanent contracts will be phased in, starting in those offices where revisions are imminent.


A range of issues remain to be resolved in respect of use of fixed term contracts and discussions with the business are continuing, but this should be seen as a significant step forward.


It is essential that members originally employed on fixed term contracts are advised of the position – a significant number now have the certainty of being offered permanent contracts and can plan for their future accordingly.


Branches and representatives should remain vigilant in representing the interests of members employed on fixed term contracts, especially where these have not previously been the subject of consultation with the union. Fixed term contract staff have the same rights under employment legislation as permanent staff, including the ability to claim unfair dismissal after 12 months employment and the right to a redundancy payment after 2 years employment. It is unlawful to treat fixed term contract staff less favourably than staff on permanent contracts and this applies to selection for redundancy.


Branches will be kept advised of the outcome of further discussions with the business.


Any enquiries should be addressed to Ray Ellis’s department, quoting reference PTC/RE/dj/020.
Email address: rellis@cwu.org



Yours sincerely





Ray Ellis,

Assistant Secretary

[fishtank]

Thanks Teebs...but this is very worrying.......

Royal Mail has agreed that individuals who, at 24th June 2010 had been in employment for more than 2 years and whose fixed term contract had expired will be offered a permanent contract. Conversions to permanent contracts will be phased in, starting in those offices where revisions are imminent.

This looks like an end to the two year rule to me.
Are they telling us that members who have reached the 2 year mark since June 24th are screwed?

[POSTMAN]

Thanks Teebs...but this is very worrying.......

Royal Mail has agreed that individuals who, at 24th June 2010 had been in employment for more than 2 years and whose fixed term contract had expired will be offered a permanent contract. Conversions to permanent contracts will be phased in, starting in those offices where revisions are imminent.

This looks like an end to the two year rule to me.
Are they telling us that members who have reached the 2 year mark since June 24th are screwed?

A range of issues remain to be resolved in respect of use of fixed term contracts and discussions with the business are continuing,

What issues,how about the CWU tell them not to be such c***s and an agreement is a f***ing agreement and if they don't stick to it all bets are off!

[fishtank]

Royal Mail has agreed that individuals who, at 24th June 2010 had been in employment for more than 2 years and whose fixed term contract had expired will be offered a permanent contract. Conversions to permanent contracts will be phased in, starting in those offices where revisions are imminent.

The more i read this the more i don't like it.
Does this part mean that as long as RM keep renewing the contract they can ignore MTSF? and when it gets to 3years 11months it's bye bye.
This isn't close to being good enough.
Why do you have to negotiate on something you already have in black and white?

[pillow]

well just got my letter offering me a "conversersion" to permanent, with paragraph two telling me that "of course we will consult with members on an individual basis, from offices that are undergoing revisions, to make sure they are not put at risk from surplus requirements."

Basically they want me to sign a blank bit of paper to say " yep you can screw me and probably offer me a 25hr contract down from a 40hr, and then in March/April we will make you redundant on 25hrs instead of 40 saving the costs, and lining the managers pockets..........

I don't think thats the way the CWU enter talks with RM, is it? Oh o.k. we will sign this bit of blank paper and then you can discuss the details after and write whatever you like on it, shafting the CWu and it's members, Royaly! Or maybe they do??

When are the CWU going to wake up. No Consultation with members, no information on the revisions given for us to make sound choices. Badly managed and proceedure not followed. It looks like they are just trying to bully staff out of their rights and then make them redundant(under MTSF).

Now, send me a covering letter with a 40hr contract with all T&C's (permanent), and I might be more inclined to sign something, accepting it. At the moment I have been advised from external sources to still not sign anything that changes my T&C's and hours without discussion first.

Oh, and I am on long term sick too with an AOD, so I wonder what's going on there then?

Anyone else spotted the con?

[pillow]

Just an update, spoke to my Union Secretary on Tuesday, who was going to a meeting with higher representation. He was supposed to contact me yesterday to let me know what the outcome was, still no call.

Another way for them to save money, constantly making members phone them!

So COMMUNICATION workers union, I don't think so.........and for the do gooders, this isn't the first time.

[POSTMAN]

Latest news from Dingo is...

There was an LTB which came out in December or late November. It stated anyone who has done two years from June last year were going to be made up . In some places this has already happened in Anglia and South East. However in some areas Royal Mail have during a fixed timers contract change from a fixed term contract to an event contract which means they do not need to make up a fixed terms contract.

The union believe this is a cheap shot by Royal Mail as many fixed term contract staff will not have been aware that there contract had been changed and talks are now resuming at national level to sort this out.

[pillow]

From: Ray Ellis
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 12:30 PM
Subject: FW: Emailing: DOC050111


Dear


Further to your telephone conversation I would advise those in receipt of the letter to sign and return it without delay if they wish to accept permanent employment.



Signing the letter would not commit the individual to accept a variation of role, location or hours but would merely be an indication that they wanted permanent employment. If people on fixed term contracts are subsequently offered jobs in a different location, different role or different hours which they do not wish to accept we should challenge this on their behalf. We have already strongly made the point at national level that we would expect those on fixed term contracts covered by the agreement reached with the business (i.e. those whose contracts have expired and has had two years service at 24th June 2010) to be substantiated on the basis of their existing hours.



As discussed, if individuals do receive offers of permanent employment on reduced hours I would be grateful if you would copy the relevant correspondence to me.



Regards



Ray Ellis