Proposals Rejected

Dear Colleague

 ROYAL MAIL PAY AND CONDITIONS OFFER – REJECTED

 It was reported previously that as the Consultative Ballot concluded, the Union received a three year closed pay and conditions offer from the company.  The purpose of this LTB is to confirm the detail of the offer and explain why it has been rejected. 

 

 THE ROYAL MAIL PAY AND CONDITIONS OFFER

 1.           Pay

 Year One (April 1st 2013 to March 31st 2014) – 2.6% basic pay increase + £300 lump sum payable December 2013 (subject to Industrial Action clause) *

 Year Two (April 1st 2014 to March 31st 2015) – 3% basic pay increase (subject to review if inflation is below 2.3% or above 3.3%) *

 Year Three (April 1st 2015 to March 31st 2016) – 2.8% basic pay increase (subject to the same review of inflation) *

 * All basic pay increases to flow through to Overtime/Scheduled Attendance rates, all allowances including Shift, London Weighting and Scottish Distant Island Allowance.

 2.           The pay offer is conditional on acceptance of the following:

 
* Acceptance of the previously rejected pension proposals currently out to consultation.

* Three year protection of existing contracts of employment and some other terms and conditions, alongside a commitment to no outsourcing for the three year duration of the deal.

* The development of an agenda for growth and stability with a commitment to a workplan to take this forward.

 
 
CWU Reasons for Rejection

 In considering the offer the Executive recognise that in today’s climate the pay element will be seen as significant, but the offer must also be viewed as an overall package and in the context of our major concerns over the company’s future strategy, pensions, privatisation and end to end competition.  Further reasons for rejecting the offer are as follows:

 
* The pay element in isolation does not meet with the terms of CWU policy and we will be seeking a higher, more straightforward settlement. 

 Neither does the pay element address our claim for significantly improved overtime rates and new bonus arrangements. 

 As well as a higher basic pay award, the Union will be seeking more certainty in any long-term deal, rather than inflation reopener clauses.

 
* The linkage to the previously rejected pension proposals is unacceptable. 

 
* The protection of some terms and conditions included in the offer is a key Union agenda item.  However, the protections attached to this offer are neither extensive enough, explicit enough nor adequate in their longevity.  Neither are they legally enforceable and would not offer CWU members any protection in the event of a change in ownership.

 
* An agenda for growth and stability is something the Union has wanted and will support if the conditions are right.  However, this offer lacks clarity over the future and is not a substitute for a proper agreement over the company’s future parcels strategy.

 Next Steps

 All in all, although this offer has been rejected, it does demonstrate that the company now appear to be serious about resolving issues that have been on the Union’s agenda for some time. 

 The Union is committed to further negotiations and a meeting has been arranged with the company later this week.  Please ensure the content of this LTB is distributed to all local workplaces.

 A further LTB will be issued this week confirming arrangements for a Conference/Policy Forum, alongside a Special Report setting out our next steps.  Any enquiries on the above LTB should be addressed to the DGS (P) Department.

 Yours sincerely

 
 
         

 Dave Ward 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: