|
Andy’s letter, which is
reproduced in full below stated:
“Dear Alan
Future of the Crown Office network negotiations
I feel that it is necessary to write to you expressing
my disappointment at the way negotiations ended last week. I would like to re-iterate
the determination of the CWU to reach an all embracing agreement which
delivers a sustainable network of flagship Crown Offices. For the avoidance
of doubt the CWU see both the network and pay as being inextricably linked
and clearly an agreement of this magnitude would need to include overall
improvements to pensionable pay, terms and conditions.
The CWU genuinely want the Crown Office network to be
a success and we are willing to work jointly with you to achieve this
objective. For this to become a reality POL must accept that our members
deserve meaningful reward for their ongoing commitment. Therefore any
changes to the network must not be accompanied by a detriment to our
members’ terms and conditions. Unfortunately your negotiating team adopted
a position last week whereby an agreement was only possible at the expense
of the majority of our members’ pensionable pay, terms and conditions.
I note that POL has decided to embark upon a strategic
review of the business plan and I would expect the CWU’s vision for a long
term sustainable Crown Office network coupled with job security to feature
highly in your deliberations. Specifically, POL needs to fully recognise in
a tangible way the qualitative value of its workforce. In essence this
means decent pensionable pay rises for all and under no circumstances
should there be any losers in relation to pensionable earnings going
forward. This position has been
consistently represented by the CWU to your team throughout the
negotiations.
Whilst fully accepting the pressures on you to bring
the Crown Office network back to profit by 2011, it is nevertheless fair to
say that no other comparable Post Office network in the world operates on
the basis of consistent profitability.
In view of this, I find it deeply disturbing that the business
appears to have an appetite to place the burden of cost reductions on CWU
represented grades, who are, as you are aware, the lowest paid members of
staff in the company. It is on this basis that the inadequate pay offer
made last week is totally unacceptable to the CWU.
Indeed, the pay offer last week was significantly
inferior to our previous discussions.
Specifically, your negotiating team had indicated that they could
‘match our aspirations’ and deliver a Shorter Working Week for our members
in the provinces by reducing the working week from 36 hours to 35, thus
harmonising working hours with London colleagues. Additionally, your team had agreed to
‘match our aspirations’ for parity of London Weighting allowances with
Royal Mail colleagues. These are
important issues to our members and it is particularly frustrating that
your negotiating team has taken a retrograde step as previously progress
had been made on these key issues.
Accordingly, our claim is for a pay increase for all
CWU represented grades in excess of the current rate of inflation (RPI).
This currently stands at 4.6%. Additionally, I have a strong aspiration to
conclude a multiple year pay deal. I fervently believe this approach to be
both logical and beneficial in relation to stability and the delivery of
your Forward: Five2Eleven business plan
It is necessary to point out that following the
Governments announcement on 14th December 2006 and the
recommencement of our negotiations on 15th January 2007 we
jointly established ‘What would success look like’ in terms of an
agreement. A key theme was an agreement had to be ‘a good deal for both
parties’. From the CWU’s perspective the current offer from POL falls well
short of meeting this ‘success’ criterion.
A further key theme in ‘What would success look like’
was the necessity for ‘employees to support the deal’. I strongly contend
that our members would overwhelmingly oppose what effectively constitutes
in real terms a cut in pensionable pay.
Furthermore, your proposals to suppress pensionable pay would have a
negative impact on the value of redundancy/pension payments received as a
result of MTSF. Obviously my members
would not be prepared to accept this inferior position.
Continuing with the theme of ‘What would success look
like’ was the objective to improve Have Your Say (HYS) results in relation
to employees feeling valued. I am sure you will agree that the ongoing HYS
results leave much to be desired. Specifically, the most recent data from February
2007 in respect of the question; ‘I feel this company values me’ had a
score of only 22% down 2% on the year to date figure of 24%.
Astonishingly both these figures represent a further
fall in the level of employee satisfaction compared to the previous year.
It is also irrefutable that these figures continue to be the worst within
the Royal Mail Group with no indication of future improvement. As somebody
whom, I know, places great importance on people feeling valued within the
business, these figures must come as an acute embarrassment to you.
In view of the above, it is not a credible position
for the business to propose what is, in effect, a pay cut in real terms
coupled with the cessation of Saturday Premium Allowances for Deputy Branch
Managers, Postal Officers and Retail Assistants, which is approximately 80%
of staff working in Crown Offices.
I understand, in line with the recent DTI consultation
document, that you are seeking major franchise agreements with well
established high street retailers. It is the CWU’s opinion if this comes to
fruition without a collective agreement on all the measures that impact on
your employees then litigation to enforce Transfer of Undertakings
(Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) is inevitable. Accordingly, all employees affected would
in actual fact be subject to TUPE.
Clearly the franchising of Crown Offices constitutes a relevant
transfer and in these circumstances POL and any franchisees would be under
obligation to adhere to these regulations and consult formally with the
CWU.
Bearing in mind that we have been advised by your
negotiating team that negotiations with your commercial partners are at an
advanced stage, I would be grateful if you could give me some firm indication
as to when you and your franchise partners intend to embark upon formal
consultation with the CWU.
The CWU has consistently demonstrated during
negotiations that we are prepared to adopt a modern and progressive
approach on many of the fundamentals contained within your business plan in
order to rebuild our industry. However, we are not able to support a
business plan that implicitly contains an erosion of pensionable pay rates
and the cessation of Saturday Premium Allowances. POL’s position in this respect is
untenable. I must be absolutely clear that our members expect POL to reach
a comprehensive agreement with the CWU. Furthermore, any un-agreed changes
in respect of franchising or closures would be completely unacceptable and
would be met with an appropriate response.
In view of the above, I wish to take this opportunity
to seek your continued agreement to the moratorium on Crown Office closures
and franchising. I would also like to understand the timescales involved in
POL’s strategic review of the business plan.
The CWU are obviously willing and available to
re-engage with your negotiating team at short notice in order to seek a
timely resolution to all of these issues and in order to reach a collective
agreement that our members can support.
Finally, in view of the serious situation, I am
publishing this letter to our members.
In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me should you
wish to discuss any of the above.
I look forward to an early and favourable response.
Yours Sincerely
ANDY FUREY
Assistant Secretary
Report 29th March 2007
|
