RMC.tv : Holiday pay? Simon Thompson "It's annoying - but it was negotiated with The CWU and we both thought that what we've done is fair."

[POSTMAN]

"I'm sorry that you feel and a number of people feel that the high levels of overtime worked haven't really, really led to a holiday pay payment.
I can assure you that we spent many, many hours over many months with the CWU discussing the thresholds for payments on the point of a join statement the c w u, this was issued the other week.

So if anyone wants to read the joint payment, they can. (Announcement LTB in this forum)

It's worth knowing that we are required by law to include regular overtime worked and calculations of employee pay when they go on holiday, what regular means for each business is quite different and given the high levels of overtime worked on our business, we felt that eight hours per month each month for six months was a fair and reasonable representation of regularity.

I can understand that if you miss the threshold by a short amount of time it would be annoying actually, but the thresholds we've set have been a negotiation with The CWU, we all believe that they're fair, but I totally get it that if you were just short of the threshold, it would be annoying, I get it."

[Jack1960]

Ok thanks, that's ok then. So just to be clear if someone had an accident on duty and couldn't work for a month that's fair? The Royal Mail negotiating team must be laughing their heads off on this one.
At least the CEO has come out with a statement unlike the CWU.

[HTPostman]

Ok thanks, that's ok then. So just to be clear if someone had an accident on duty and couldn't work for a month that's fair? The Royal Mail negotiating team must be laughing their heads off on this one.
At least the CEO has come out with a statement unlike the CWU.

Whenever the CWU does a statement it reads like it’s been written by RM anyway.

[Weetrogg2]

It’s not really upto the CEO to explain why the CWU negotiated and agreed such poor deal but from his point of view I bet he can’t believe his luck that the union agreed to this really bad deal for its members .

I believe TP and his team are on the cusp of a fantastic pay deal, although it’s been complicated they have managed to secure a paycut of only 1% which they think is fantastic achievement given the circumstances Only joking

[HTPostman]

Does anyone in the know have any idea why the CWU put this to a branch vote rather than a member vote?

[Boboskins]

What I don't understand about this is how can they get away with imposing a criteria on overtime which was done when no one at the time knew there would be one to receive the holiday pay? Fair enough going forward as we all now know but to apply it to the backdated pay is seriously unfair. Out of the 4 periods 3 of them I've done 62, 77 & 69 hours yet missed out because I am on Wallington week so for the odd month I didn't get past the 8 hour threshold. The Union ballsed this up royally. There is no 'one size fits all' solution as we all know, different DO have different rotas which either benefit people with regards to this holiday pay or punish them! I'll make it nice and easy for RM in the future, no overtime. Any goodwill I had towards the company has gone.

[HTPostman]

What I don't understand about this is how can they get away with imposing a criteria on overtime which was done when no one at the time knew there would be one to receive the holiday pay? Fair enough going forward as we all now know but to apply it to the backdated pay is seriously unfair. Out of the 4 periods 3 of them I've done 62, 77 & 69 hours yet missed out because I am on Wallington week so for the odd month I didn't get past the 8 hour threshold. The Union ballsed this up royally. There is no 'one size fits all' solution as we all know, different DO have different rotas which either benefit people with regards to this holiday pay or punish them! I'll make it nice and easy for RM in the future, no overtime. Any goodwill I had towards the company has gone.

They got away with it because they can. I’m sure if they could’ve, they’d have made the minimum criteria 80 hours not 8. This agreement was never about being fair or facing up to years of underpayments, it was all about what could they get the union to agree to and how little expense can they get away with.

[Kaning It]

It’s annoying and wrong but it can still be overturned by those still with live claims and by those starting new ones based on the payment they just received/didn’t receive.

It’s not game over and RM know full well some of the staff have been unnecessarily shafted - if they can see it, so will an Employment Tribunal.

Anyone who lost out because of the 8 hour criteria has the option to try and change that for the better by putting in a new claim to the ET. People can either accept it and moan/feel hard done by or not accept it and take action.

An ET claim is free & doesn’t need any specialist legal knowledge. RM’s lawyers have already spoken to the Tribunal about the outstanding claims, if more people add new ones, the more chance of getting the right and proper deal - holiday pay based on average earnings over the previous 12 months, as is the law.

[worktotime]

It’s annoying and wrong but it can still be overturned by those still with live claims and by those starting new ones based on the payment they just received/didn’t receive.

It’s not game over and RM know full well some of the staff have been unnecessarily shafted - if they can see it, so will an Employment Tribunal.

Anyone who lost out because of the 8 hour criteria has the option to try and change that for the better by putting in a new claim to the ET. People can either accept it and moan/feel hard done by or not accept it and take action.

An ET claim is free & doesn’t need any specialist legal knowledge. RM’s lawyers have already spoken to the Tribunal about the outstanding claims, if more people add new ones, the more chance of getting the right and proper deal - holiday pay based on average earnings over the previous 12 months, as is the law.

just a quick question as i have ongoing live claims , and the last 6 months that had finished i had done 74hrs o/t but will not get anything as i only did 4 hours in 1 month so when this payment is made in November how would you put an e/t case in as the last claims where done over a 12 week period before your leave ? but the way it is now its over 2 x 6 month periods so how would that work , cheers

[Kaning It]

It’s annoying and wrong but it can still be overturned by those still with live claims and by those starting new ones based on the payment they just received/didn’t receive.

It’s not game over and RM know full well some of the staff have been unnecessarily shafted - if they can see it, so will an Employment Tribunal.

Anyone who lost out because of the 8 hour criteria has the option to try and change that for the better by putting in a new claim to the ET. People can either accept it and moan/feel hard done by or not accept it and take action.

An ET claim is free & doesn’t need any specialist legal knowledge. RM’s lawyers have already spoken to the Tribunal about the outstanding claims, if more people add new ones, the more chance of getting the right and proper deal - holiday pay based on average earnings over the previous 12 months, as is the law.

just a quick question as i have ongoing live claims , and the last 6 months that had finished i had done 74hrs o/t but will not get anything as i only did 4 hours in 1 month so when this payment is made in November how would you put an e/t case in as the last claims where done over a 12 week period before your leave ? but the way it is now its over 2 x 6 month periods so how would that work , cheers

Your claim will be for not being paid holiday pay based on what the law current says, that is average pay over the previous 12 months. Forget the 6 month thing as that is RM’s made up criteria and you want to be paid on the law which, since April 2020, has been that holiday pay should be paid based on the average of the last 12 months (prior to April 20 it was a 12 week reference period).

So your case will be…my average holiday pay is currently paid twice yearly, so not when I actually take my leave. This in itself is unfair. Under this system, I was due to be paid for all the holiday I took between 29th March 2021 to 26th September 2021 on 26 November 2021 but I wasn’t. I worked x hours overtime in that six month period but this was not reflected in my holiday pay. My average weekly pay over the legally defined holiday reference period of the previous 12 months is £x but I only received £x as RM have a false and unreasonable definition of regular.


People can do this sort of claim each time they fail to be paid average pay on each 6 month payday. If enough people add claims from this September round and then again in November, it will escalate and RM will have to either a) end up in the Tribunal defending their current criteria or b) change the “annoying” criteria for everyone and so improve their reputation and relationship with their employees or c) pay individuals off each time.

[worktotime]

It’s annoying and wrong but it can still be overturned by those still with live claims and by those starting new ones based on the payment they just received/didn’t receive.

It’s not game over and RM know full well some of the staff have been unnecessarily shafted - if they can see it, so will an Employment Tribunal.

Anyone who lost out because of the 8 hour criteria has the option to try and change that for the better by putting in a new claim to the ET. People can either accept it and moan/feel hard done by or not accept it and take action.

An ET claim is free & doesn’t need any specialist legal knowledge. RM’s lawyers have already spoken to the Tribunal about the outstanding claims, if more people add new ones, the more chance of getting the right and proper deal - holiday pay based on average earnings over the previous 12 months, as is the law.

just a quick question as i have ongoing live claims , and the last 6 months that had finished i had done 74hrs o/t but will not get anything as i only did 4 hours in 1 month so when this payment is made in November how would you put an e/t case in as the last claims where done over a 12 week period before your leave ? but the way it is now its over 2 x 6 month periods so how would that work , cheers

Your claim will be for not being paid holiday pay based on what the law current says, that is average pay over the previous 12 months. Forget the 6 month thing as that is RM’s made up criteria and you want to be paid on the law which, since April 2020, has been that holiday pay should be paid based on the average of the last 12 months (prior to April 20 it was a 12 week reference period).

So your case will be…my average holiday pay is currently paid twice yearly, so not when I actually take my leave. This in itself is unfair. Under this system, I was due to be paid for all the holiday I took between 29th March 2021 to 26th September 2021 on 26 November 2021 but I wasn’t. I worked x hours overtime in that six month period but this was not reflected in my holiday pay. My average weekly pay over the legally defined holiday reference period of the previous 12 months is £x but I only received £x as RM have a false and unreasonable definition of regular.


People can do this sort of claim each time they fail to be paid average pay on each 6 month payday. If enough people add claims from this September round and then again in November, it will escalate and RM will have to either a) end up in the Tribunal defending their current criteria or b) change the “annoying” criteria for everyone and so improve their reputation and relationship with their employees or c) pay individuals off each time.

cheers.

[woofwoof]

It’s annoying and wrong but it can still be overturned by those still with live claims and by those starting new ones based on the payment they just received/didn’t receive.

It’s not game over and RM know full well some of the staff have been unnecessarily shafted - if they can see it, so will an Employment Tribunal.

Anyone who lost out because of the 8 hour criteria has the option to try and change that for the better by putting in a new claim to the ET. People can either accept it and moan/feel hard done by or not accept it and take action.

An ET claim is free & doesn’t need any specialist legal knowledge. RM’s lawyers have already spoken to the Tribunal about the outstanding claims, if more people add new ones, the more chance of getting the right and proper deal - holiday pay based on average earnings over the previous 12 months, as is the law.

just a quick question as i have ongoing live claims , and the last 6 months that had finished i had done 74hrs o/t but will not get anything as i only did 4 hours in 1 month so when this payment is made in November how would you put an e/t case in as the last claims where done over a 12 week period before your leave ? but the way it is now its over 2 x 6 month periods so how would that work , cheers

Your claim will be for not being paid holiday pay based on what the law current says, that is average pay over the previous 12 months. Forget the 6 month thing as that is RM’s made up criteria and you want to be paid on the law which, since April 2020, has been that holiday pay should be paid based on the average of the last 12 months (prior to April 20 it was a 12 week reference period).

So your case will be…my average holiday pay is currently paid twice yearly, so not when I actually take my leave. This in itself is unfair. Under this system, I was due to be paid for all the holiday I took between 29th March 2021 to 26th September 2021 on 26 November 2021 but I wasn’t. I worked x hours overtime in that six month period but this was not reflected in my holiday pay. My average weekly pay over the legally defined holiday reference period of the previous 12 months is £x but I only received £x as RM have a false and unreasonable definition of regular.


People can do this sort of claim each time they fail to be paid average pay on each 6 month payday. If enough people add claims from this September round and then again in November, it will escalate and RM will have to either a) end up in the Tribunal defending their current criteria or b) change the “annoying” criteria for everyone and so improve their reputation and relationship with their employees or c) pay individuals off each time.

Should put that in the stickies Postman it may spread in the November payment

[Dorset Plodder]

Hats off to the CEO for actually bothering to comment.

However IF he can see that somethings wrong why not change it? We're always being lectured to: "Give it a go on a trial basis, and then we can look at it again in a months time to see if it's working" Why not do the same now that you've got so much negative feedback?

As previously commented on ... Probably because he knew we'd be short changed .... and didn't care.

[rambo1]

Hats off to the CEO for actually bothering to comment.

However IF he can see that somethings wrong why not change it? We're always being lectured to: "Give it a go on a trial basis, and then we can look at it again in a months time to see if it's working" Why not do the same now that you've got so much negative feedback?

As previously commented on ... Probably because he knew we'd be short changed .... and didn't care.

Come on give the guy a break. Didn't you hear him? He gets it. Said it several times. Doesn't that make you feel all warm inside that although you're missing hundreds of pounds thanks to a shoddy deal he made with the cwu, he still feels yours (and my) pain at being short changed. I'm so so pleased to have such a sym(pathetic) set of leaders at the helm.

[aiden01]

Hats off to the CEO for actually bothering to comment.

However IF he can see that somethings wrong why not change it? We're always being lectured to: "Give it a go on a trial basis, and then we can look at it again in a months time to see if it's working" Why not do the same now that you've got so much negative feedback?

As previously commented on ... Probably because he knew we'd be short changed .... and didn't care.

Just like cwu then