Royal Mail Materials Handling Containerisation Update & Christmas Arrangements 2019 – Health & Safety Aspects

Below is a summary update on Materials Handling Containerisation Arrangements for the 2019 Christmas period. The contents of this LTB have been discussed and agreed with Royal Mail HQ, Central Containers Team.

1. York Containers

Royal Mail has purchased an additional 10,000 Mk3 York Containers and these, along with 198,000 (Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3) York Containers held in storage, will be injected into the system via the Parcel Sort Centers, RDCs and Amazon. All will be in the network by early December. A total fleet of around 600,000 Yorks will be in service during the Christmas pressure period. The highest number ever.

Royal Mail will be looking for Yorks to be filled with the maximum 7 layers of 4 trays (28 Max), wherever possible subject to safe systems of work, weight constraints of the container and subsequently the vehicle weight limits on to which they will be loaded to comply with Safe Systems of Work and both Health and Safety and Road Traffic Act Legislation.

York Containers primarily carry mainly trays, mailbags, parcels and small parcels and packets in ALP (Auto-Level Packet) Sleeves. They do have other uses, referred to below.

All Mk1, Mk2 and MK3 York Containers introduced in previous years have continued to be maintained, modified and updated through rework programmes as identified by the Royal Mail Assets, Containers and Manual Handling Equipment Team in consultation with the CWU Health, Safety & Environment Department and as previously reported in updates to Branches and Area Health and Safety Reps. Mk’s 1, 2 and 3 amount to the vast majority of the 600,000 York Containers.

All Mk 4 York Containers, 10,000 in total will be put into circulation for the Christmas period and as such the “Mandatory” messages outlined within our recent LTB 571/19 to all offices as follows must be complied with: –

• MK4 Parcel Yorks must not be sent to Mail Centres without PSM machines or to RDCs (other than for cross-docking and onward distribution via the network) or to Delivery Offices (other than those co-located with Collection Hubs).
• Only people trained in the use of the MK4 York container can handle them – “MANDATORY”.
• The MK4 Parcel York container is to be used to assist with the automation of parcels through the Royal Mail pipeline.
• RM see the MK4 as key equipment, crucial to the efficient running of Parcel Sorting Machines (PSMs) and plays a vital role in moving sorted parcels through the pipeline‎.
• MK4’s are to be used in Mail Centres that have a PSM to dispatch outward traffic to other PSM sites.
• The “Mandatory” SSoW must be followed always and when used in manual sort areas, the Mark 4 York base must be set in the upper/highest position.
• There are now 16 Mail Centres with Parcel Sort Machines (PSM) with a further three due to be installed, taking the total to 19.
• MK4 Yorks are NOT to be sent to Mail Centres without PSM machines or to RDCs or to Delivery Offices.
• It is crucial that MK4s are returned to PSM sites as quickly as possible to maintain the operation.
• Although MK4 Yorks can be used across the network – RM needs to focus their use in automation.
• All storage areas are to be checked for MK4 parcel Yorks and they must be returned to the nearest PSM site.
• PSM Offices: Birmingham, Bristol, Chelmsford, Gatwick, Glasgow, Greenford, Home Counties North, Jubilee, Leeds, ‎ Manchester, Peterborough, Preston, Sheffield, South Midlands, Swindon and Warrington.
• Damaged MK4 Yorks should be returned to the Royal Mail Milton Keynes Container Storage site – via existing MHE damaged equipment services, by trained staff.
• Any incorrect MK4 York use/arrivals to be reported to container.reporting@royalmail.com‎
• Mk4 Yorks should not be used for despatches to customers as the small number Royal Mail has are best utilised within the Royal Mail network and to avoid abuse/misuse and accidents at customer premises by untrained staff.
• Any stray Mk4s should be sent back to PSM plants and not used for other purposes.

York Container SSoW – (See Attachment)

1(a). York Container ALP Sleeves

Royal Mail, over the last 3 years purchased 98,000 new ALP Sleeves all of which were released into the network.  A further 35,000 ALP Sleeves were purchased this year consisting of 14,000 Red Mk1 ALP Sleeves and 21,000 Grey Mk2 ALP Sleeves, which include a modification to allow the ALPs to be automated/tipped within the Parcel Sortation Machine (PSM) Mail Centres (MCs) as part a National Joint Trial as agreed with both the CWU Health, Safety & Environment Department and the Postal Department. These ALPs, along with 28,000 Red Mk1 ALPs which were previously held in storage, will now be put into the network in the run up to the Christmas peak.

A further 1,300 Green Mk1 ALP sleeves (for the use of Special Delivery items only) have also been purchased and will be put into the system over the next few weeks.

1(b). York Container – Cardboard Sleeves

This Year Royal Mail has centrally purchased a further 14,000 New Red Mk1 ALP sleeves with 21,000 New Grey MK2 ALP sleeves (with the Automation/Tipping modification of additional straps) still to be put into the network over the next few weeks, as part of the continuing national trial.

However, as Royal Mail moves further into the busiest period at Christmas, and parcel volumes begin to peak, the need to move parcels through the network quickly becomes critical and demand for ALP Sleeves increases. Even though Royal Mail has put 320,000 additional York Containers and 250,000 additional ALP Sleeves in to the network over the last seven years, amounting to 600,000 York’s in circulation with over half of those fitted with an ALP Sleeve, Royal Mail has informed us that with increasing parcel volumes and large tracked customers there may be problems with sites struggling to get sufficient numbers of ALP Sleeves to meet their operational requirements. The Central Container Team will continue to push the Zonal Areas to ensure that they clear their Delivery Offices every day and repatriations from gaining sites take place but they may still struggle to meet the demand at key locations. Royal Mail has assured CWU/HQ that they will do everything possible to ensure that Zonal Areas repatriate as many York Containers and ALP Sleeves as possible out of their Delivery Offices however the business is now seeing the continued increase in parcel volumes and traffic. As a result, Zonal Areas will probably struggle to get sufficient ALP Sleeves back into their Parcel Sort Centre operations and losing Mail Centers to meet demand. As and when critical emergency situations are reached in Offices, Royal Mail has proposed and CWU/HQ has agreed that as a Christmas contingency only, the use of Cardboard Sleeves/York Inserts will be permitted as a last resort – with agreement with the RM CPC/Container Team as follows: –

(a)  As a contingency at Mail Centre’s, PSCs and RDC’s for outward dispatches and inward dispatches.

(b) For outward dispatches by Mail Centres and Parcel Sort Centres.

(c) For 2nd Class parcel dispatches from Mail Centres to PSC’s.

(d) Before this contingency is implemented however the site must ensure that all efforts have been made to get ALPs back from their DO’s and that permission has been sought and been given by the RM Container Team.

(e) Designated and approved Customer Streams to MC and DO (AMZ DI/DDU).

IMPORTANT: – If Cardboard Sleeves/York Inserts are used as a contingency, the site must ensure that:-

(a) The CWU Area Safety Representative and Area Processing Representative are consulted should this contingency need to be implemented.

(b) That the SSoW is followed at all times, rotating duties if necessary.

(c) That the mandatory cross-members and false bases must be fitted and used correctly in Cardboard Sleeved York Containers. Any Offices found not to be compliant with this instruction will be asked to investigate reasons why this has happened and furnish a report on remedial action taken with the report shared with the CWU Area Safety Representative. Such breaches of the SSoW by Management will be viewed as serious!

Once the Christmas pressure period is finished, the contingency use of Cardboard Sleeve Inserts will be withdrawn and Offices will revert back to business as usual with Cardboard Sleeves used on the agreed Amazon/Tracked Contracts only and the parcel operation must revert back to using ALP Sleeves for inward transfers to DOs and outward dispatches to Mail Centres and Regional Distribution Centres.

The cardboard MUST be in good order; the cross member and base must be inserted in compliance with the SSoW at all times.

Under no circumstances is damaged cardboard to be used and it must be discarded locally.

The current, agreed York Container SSoW (See Attachment) includes a section on the use of Cardboard Sleeves, see extract below:-

“Additional Requirements for York Container Cardboard Sleeves

• Only to be used for Approved Contracts (Not permitted for any other mail stream)
• In addition, Cardboard Sleeves can be used in exceptional circumstances only with the approval of CPC/National Containers Team.
• DO NOT use sleeves for packets weighing more than 10kg.
• Use the false base and cross support at all times.
• When sorting from a sleeve, open the lower part of the sleeve to improve access to packets at the bottom.
• When sorting from a sleeve, position the York to minimise twisting – use your feet to turn and not your body.
• DO NOT tip bags into cardboard sleeves.
• Before moving the York, close the sleeve to retain the contents.”

For reference to the Safe Systems of Work (SSoWs) for York Containers and the new design Mk2 Cardboard Sleeves‎ (See Attachment).

1(c). York Containers – Loading Parcels of a Shoe Box Size or larger.

In previous years both Royal Mail, Tracked Customer and Amazon had concerns about the shortage of York Containers across the network and additional costs incurred by losing approximately 15% of York fill capacity when inserting Cardboard Sleeve false bases into York Containers. In line with the York Container SSoW, York Containers will be filled and stacked with parcels/packets larger than shoe box size without any form of Cardboard Sleeve or false base etc. This approach is only applied to larger items and Sleeves, Bases and Cross Members will not be removed for smaller packet items, i.e., those smaller than a shoe box size. Those packets will continue to be loaded into York Containers with either an ALP Sleeve (preferable) or a full Cardboard Sleeve with a cross-member and false base fitted. This was jointly examined and found to be the best approach.

The York Container SSoW states under the heading of ‘Approved Loads’ that ‘Loose strapped bundles, Boxes, provided they are of sufficient dimensions, such as they will be retained by the load retention straps and container framework.’  (See Attachment).

This approach has been ergonomically tested and approved prior to concluding the York Container SSoW. It makes both safety and business sense to apply this principle for larger parcels which are not suitable for loose loading into sleeved Yorks in most cases.

1(d). York Containers – Use of Shrink-Wrap/Cling-Film

The existing agreed national policy remains as follows “There is no agreement whatsoever to use “Shrink-Wrap/Cling-Film” on York Containers under any circumstances. Also, Opsflash – CPC (2008) No 167 instructs all sites that have received new trays delivered on pallets and shrink wrapped to remove and dispose of the shrink wrap immediately. There are NO circumstances where the shrink-wrapping of Yorks is acceptable. This practice must not be allowed at any RM site.

2. RSCs Rigid Stackable Container

4,000 RSC’s will be released from storage between November and Christmas into the RDC network.

RSCs are not intended for use inside Mail Centres and Delivery Offices and are primarily for the Distribution Centre’s network and warehouse environments where there is sufficient space and where risk assessment and Safe Systems of Work requirements apply, in respect of workplace transport hazards from FLTs and crush hazards etc., specific Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) regulations requirements also apply in these work environments, e.g., high visibility clothing and protective footwear. RSCs may only be used in risk controlled working environments as per the Safe Systems of Work.

3. FSC Folding Stackable Containers 

20,500 FSCs (a folding version of the RSC) have now been purchased by Royal Mail since 2011. These will be used in areas where they give best cost benefits i.e., sites with limited floor space and gaining sites that can repatriate the units back out more cost effectively as they can be folded down.

Safe Systems of Work (SSoW) are located on a plate on the side of the container. (See Attachment).

MCs/DOs should not receive FSCs, however, if received they should be returned to the local RDC as soon as possible.

4. Cardboard RSCs

As originally reported in LTB 632/05 and successfully utilised during successive Christmas pressure periods since 2005, Cardboard RSCs were introduced to provide additional storage for mail sort Christmas deferred mailings, empty bags and empty trays. These are used primarily in the RDC network over the Christmas period and are being introduced for the storage of empty bags; empty trays and Mail Sort 3 Christmas deferred mailing items during the Christmas pressure period. They will also be used for some bagged customer postings.

These are folding, heavy-duty cardboard containers with the base fixed to a standard wooden pallet.

200 Cardboard RSCs have been held in storage and are available as a contingency for an additional container during the Christmas peak period and intended:

• For use for Deferred Mailings during the Christmas peak period.
• For use anywhere in Royal Mail’s network and at customer premises.
• For storage of empty bags and trays to release RSCs into the network.
• For conveyance of empty bags to customers.
• For empty bags, empty trays and bags of mail.

Cardboard RSCs are intended to be:

• A reusable container.
• Used indoors and in the RDC network, but NOT for external storage where they may get wet.
• Folded flat when being stored empty.

Cardboard RSCs are:

• NOT compatible with the standard Steel RSC and must not be stacked with any other container type.
• NOT to be used for bundled/strapexed mail, trayed mail, small loose parcels or any heavy items.

Cardboard RSCs must be kept under the roof and not exposed to outside elements or humidity.  A minimum four uses per cardboard RSC must be achieved.  Damaged cardboard RSCs must be cannibalised to maintain serviceable stocks.  Vehicles can accommodate more empty cardboard RSCs than steel RSCs per trip. Offices should prioritise the repatriation of serviceable cardboard RSCs ahead of steel RSCs. Cardboard RSCs are produced by, ‘DS Smith’. They are constructed of triple ply corrugated cardboard and are approximately 1.2m wide x 1m deep x 950mm high. They consist of 3 parts: A cardboard tray mounted on a standard 1200 x 1000 mm wooden pallet. A folding sleeve which folds to fit inside the base tray and can be assembled to construct the Pallet Box. A cardboard lid which fits over the sleeve when assembled and over the Base Tray when the sleeve is folded flat inside the Base Tray. They have a carrying capacity of 650kg as a single or double stack. The approximate weight filled with empty trays is 85kg – filled with bags of mail 340kg.

Cardboard RSCs may only be stacked as follows:

• 3 high when assembled and loaded with empty bags and empty trays.
• 2 high when assembled and loaded with mail.
• IF IN DOUBT OF THE CONTENTS – ONLY STACK 2 HIGH.
• 10 high when delivered new, strapped and unused.
• 8 high when empty and folded flat.

Cardboard RSCs may be moved by:

• MHE stacked 2 high assembled and 8 high when empty and folded flat.
• Using a forklift, a powered or a hand pallet lifter.

Cardboard RSCs may be secured and moved by vehicle.

The Cardboard RSC SSoW – (See Attachment)   

5. ‘A’ Frame Roll Containers 

As originally reported in LTBs 838/06 and 840/06, 12,000 supermarket type “Roll Cage” Containers were introduced in 2006 by the Royal Mail Group Procurement Operational Equipment Team, manufactured by “Palletower” and “Cargo Pak”. They were strictly intended for internal use (inside Offices) and for storage purposes only, in order to free up much needed York Containers. Since their introduction, the number of York Containers has doubled and the limitations of these “Roll Cages” have seen them become outmoded against the all-round far superior York Container. These Containers have therefore and will continue to be run down, phased out and withdrawn from Royal Mail service. SSOW – (See Attachment)

For removals of the Containers please contact: container.reporting@royalmail.com‎

6. Loose Loading of Mail Bags – Christmas 2019

Further to enquiries and concerns raised by Branches and Area Safety Reps in previous years regarding possible loose loading, Royal Mail has confirmed they will be taking a number of steps to ensure that loose loading of mail should only take place in exceptional circumstances, as a last resort.

If loose loading has to occur, local CWU Reps will be consulted and the Manual Handling/Loose Loading SSOW will be adhered to. 

Clear instructions have been issued by Royal Mail HQ CPC that should any service which is normally containerised have to be loose loaded, then the dispatching unit must inform the receiving unit in advance so that they can provide any additional staff resources and working arrangements which may be necessary to ensure health and safety standards are maintained.

Extract from Loose loading Core Risk Assessment: – 

It is a Royal Mail goal that no manual handling task will exceed risk level 2.  Mail Bags average 7kg, maximum gross weight 11kg. Lifting frequency up to 7 bags/minimum over a 30 min period (then rest). Vehicle doors are adequately maintained and must be in good working order.

Priority Services bags could exceed 11kgs but they should be clearly labelled with the weight so that special consideration can be given to lifting. NB: No Priority Services bag exceeding 11kgs should contain more than 1 item. All equipment is used in accordance with the appropriate Safe System of Work. All staff to have received manual handling training and instruction or refresher training during the past 3 years.  All staff to understand and operate the appropriate Safe System of Work. If there are any tasks that are not listed, the manager must consult the safety team for further advice. No pregnant worker or person under 18 should undertake tasks greater than risk level 1.

7. Plastic Letter Trays

Last year RM purchased 1m trays which stayed in the system. Royal Mail has purchased an additional 700,000 trays this year and all will be released from stores and delivered directly from suppliers during October, November and December.

8. New Blue Bags for International Dispatches

2.5 million new blue bags for international dispatches have been purchased this year and will be fed into Mail Centers via direct delivery in November ready for the DSL Operation.

New RM International MB4L bags for automation:

RM International has this year deployed a new larger Blue Bag for use within its Automation Streams known as the MB4L. These bags are not to be used in RM domestic postings and are designed for export only and only to be handled and used within RM International Sites.

9. Pallets – Transportation, Processing, Unloading and Stacking of Pallets

This year Royal Mail has again faced an increased requirement from bulk customers to accept and process palletized loads, including shrink/stretch wrapped palletized traffic. The SSoWs have therefore been reviewed to ensure sufficient up to date information and instruction is available to allow Offices and managers to control safety risks for the specific tasks and ensure the correct work methods are adopted and materials handling equipment deployed for this increasing area of work to ensure it can be completed safely. The new, updated SSoW and associated, embedded SSoWs are attached. This includes embedded documents – Pallet Truck SSoW, DDT SSoW, Palletising of Trays SSoW, and Manual Handling SSoW. (See Attachment).

10. Repatriation of York Containers, ALPs, Trays and Cardboard

To ensure we keep our sites safe and clear throughout our busiest time of year with the largest volume of containers within the network, Delivery Offices are to ensure that MHE repatriations are presented in the agreed locations and fully nested and consolidated in line with the York SSoW and identified on the offices Yard Risk Assessment.  This will ensure we not only avoid congestion and potential safety issues but will also ensure we can maintain supply of our customers so that we can deliver a fantastic service.

We encourage our members and local WSR/ASRs to report container volume issues within their respective Delivery Offices to container.reporting@royalamil.com so that they can assist in site clearances and ensure we support the operation and customer requirements.

11. Repair of Faulty & Damaged Containers, Sleeves, Trays

All damaged containers must be withdrawn and repaired before being brought back into service. The following instructions relate to the repair of the individual containers:

(a) Letter Trays

• Royal Mail has an agreement with one plastics group for the recycling of RM letter trays, for which Royal Mail receives payment.  For this to be cost effective AAC Ltd will only accept complete trailer loads of trays, equating to 5200 trays.  This process describes the use of a collection point to ensure that trays are recycled and do not build up in offices.
• Trays must be removed from use if damaged and not suitable for use if, for example:

–      There are any obvious physical defects such as breakages or holes (other than those designed).

–      The tray sides or bottom are split.

–      The handle is damaged e.g., split.

–      The label holder is damaged in such a way as to render it unusable.

• The tray is NOT deemed damaged if only:

–      The barcode or barcode clip is missing.

–      The tray bottom is bowed.

–      Only the corners are chipped and then only if the break does not leave a jagged or pointed edge.

• Ensure the damage sustained to trays meets the criteria described above.
  All Mail Centres and Delivery Offices should have a process for identifying damaged trays and for isolating them from operational use.  Delivery Offices should label the trays as damaged and send them to their local Mail Centre for consolidation and recycling.
• All damaged trays should be loaded to RSCs.  The trays should be nested, where possible 8 to a layer and 9 layers high, where the height of the trays does not exceed the height of the RSC sides. RSCs of damaged trays should be labelled as shown below and then sent to the local RDC for onward movement to NDC. Spare capacity on existing runs only should be utilised.

DAMAGED TRAYS:

SEND TO AAC via NDC

• NDC to consolidate the RSCs of damaged trays and, when a trailer is loaded to capacity, forwards them to One 51 Plastic.

(b) York Containers

Examples of damage:

• Sharp, jagged or pointed hazards.
• Anything, which prevents proper assembly.
• Anything, which prevents proper movement.
• Temporary or amateur repairs.
• Broken welds.
• Excessive corrosion.
• Damaged or missing wheels.
• Missing wheel retaining nuts, pins or clips.
• Poor brake operation.
• Damaged or defective towing arrangements.
• Missing or damaged straps or clips.

The repair process is as follows:

• A number of sites have been nominated to receive a scheduled visit by a York repair team (currently RMP&FS).
• Some sites also act as a consolidation site looking after a catchment area of other offices. For example SDC in Wishaw receives all of the damaged/strapless Yorks in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• A contact at each site has been developed and a location for the storage and repair of Yorks identified.
• Each Thursday a count of damaged Yorks is submitted by each site to the Royal Mail mhe_cpc e-mail inbox and the figures are used to plan a schedule for the following week’s site visits. Some offices may have a team that visits every day whilst others will be visited by mobile teams as required. The minimum requirement is that there be 50 Yorks needing repair on site.
• A repairer can replace anything up to 100 straps per day but, if there are structural repairs also needing to be done, the overall number can reduce substantially. The repairer will check each damaged York for other possible problems and does not solely rely on the fault noted by Royal Mail staff.

Damaged Yorks may be moved, on existing services, from non-repairing sites to a consolidation site (see repair process above) to await repair. Damaged Yorks should be labelled accordingly so that the receiving site is aware.

Damaged Yorks must not, however, be used to form part of a movement order to another site and should never be sent to a customer. Neither should damaged Yorks knowingly be used to convey mail through the network.

Some straps have given the appearance of losing their elasticity but tests have been carried out at the manufacturer and replicated by our engineers in Swindon and the results show that this does not affect load retention or the safety of the York. It is not, therefore, necessary to replace such straps.

Short Strap repairs, can be carried out locally at any site for more information contact container.reporting@royalmail.com  

(c) RSC and FSC

• Examples of damage to an RSC/FSC are as follows;

–      Sharp, jagged or pointed hazards.

–      Anything which prevents proper assembly or movement.

–      Temporary or amateur repairs.

–      Broken welds.

–      Broken side wires bent inwards or outwards.

–      Excessive corrosion.

–      Mis-aligned feet or spigots which hinder stacking.

• In these circumstances, an ‘Out of Service’ label must be attached and the nature of the problem noted on the label.
• Damaged RSCs/FSC’s should be moved to a designated area to await repair. They may only be stacked if the uprights are intact and make contact with the RSC/FSC above at all 4 corners.  They may not be stacked if to do so would leave an unstable stack.  If in doubt – DO NOT STACK.
• Damaged RSCs/FSC’s must be forwarded to NDC for onward movement to MK Stores for repair. Movements of damaged RSCs should be agreed with the local Container Equipment Manager beforehand.

(d) Auto Levelling Packet Sleeves

• A minimum of 25 sleeves will be presented for repair in a single consignment.  Sleeves are to be packed in Rigid Stackable Containers (each containing 25 sleeves).
• Clearly labelled damaged RSCs are to be returned to SWDC for onward movement back to the manufacturer Jacon.

(e) York Cardboard Sleeves

• Cardboard Sleeves are not repairable. Any damaged sleeves must be disposed of by local arrangement.
• Any re-usable parts of cardboard sleeves must be returned to Amazon; whether by direct transfer or via the nearest RDC.
• Cardboard inserts to be stored/transferred in York’s or palletised on at Regional Distribution Centre’s using good pallets.
• If held/stored onsite ahead of transfer they must be kept under cover or protected from the weather.
• All component parts must be in good order (certainly not water damaged or torn) and ready to use. Any not meeting these criteria should be disposed of locally.
• Yorks must be individually packed i.e., no mixed component parts please. Yorks to separately contain X Member/Sides/Bases which must be stacked neatly.
• Any transfers arriving at Amazon that do not meet these criteria may be refused by the Amazon Team.

(f) Cardboard RSCs

Any damage needs to be checked. The following damage would render the Cardboard RSC unusable:

• Water damaged/wet cardboard.
• Tears greater than 25%/¼ of the length of any one side or along any seam.
• Tears in 2 adjoining corners of the tray or lid.
• Staples in the seam undone with exposed points.
• Broken Pallet Base such that the wooden planks are broken or the corner blocks are damaged such that they would not support a load.

The following would not necessarily render the Cardboard RSC unusable:

• Small holes in the side walls, for example made by fork lift tines.
• Small tears, i.e., less than 25%/¼ of the length of any one side or along any Seam.
• One tear in the corner of the tray or lid.

If there is any doubt as to the safe condition of the Cardboard RSC, then it must be considered damaged. Any damage which renders the sleeve unusable needs to be reported and the damaged part (i.e., the lid, sleeve or tray) marked with a cross from a thick marker pen. Only the damaged part needs to be marked as the undamaged parts may be used as spares.

Transport and transfer equipment must meet the receiving customer’s safety requirements.

(g) Wheeled Container Repair Process including Mini Yorks (Other than York Containers)

The following process should be used to keep wheeled containers functional:

1. When a wheeled container (other than a Yorks) is found to be faulty, remove it from operational service and label it accordingly.
2. Log the fault with the Properties & Facilities Helpdesk on 0870 850 1000, who will give a reference number. The Helpdesk will then contact RMP&FS, who allocates the work to the local coordinator. A RMP&FS engineer then plans and completes the repair.
3. If the repair is not economical, the engineer condemns the equipment and advises the Unit Manager. The Unit Manager then decides if they want it replaced, and completes a Requisition Form ECF01 and sends it to the Asset Support Team.
4. When the repair is completed, RMP&FS invoice through the Inter Business Agreement, which is funded from the central assets budget. Area budgets are not affected.

(h)  General note on containers:

If there are any surplus containers on site that are not damaged and you are unsure of where to send them, you should consult your Regional Head of Assets for Yorks, Trays and Sleeves or your Container Equipment Manager for RSCs.

14. Contacts & Phone Numbers – IMPORTANT

Should Area Safety Representatives wish to discuss any issues or questions in relation to Container Control or Container Equipment, the following field managers can be contacted for all Royal Mail Container related issues:-

National Team Contacts

National Asset Supply Chain Manager                            Gary Yeo – 07872 636537

National Container Supply & MHE Manager                      Ian MacDonald – 07436 560875

Container Manager North                                                   Clare Smith – 07872816461

Belfast, SDC, Edinburgh, Perth, Inverness and

Aberdeen, Warrington, Chester, NWDC, NWPSC

Tyneside, Darlington, Preston, Chorley,

Carlisle, Manchester, Stockport, Leeds,

Bradford, York, YDC, Sheffield, Doncaster and

Hull, Nottingham, NEPSC, East Midlands Airport

Crewe, Shrewsbury

Container Manager South                                                   Sid Rajan – 07802 921737

HCN, NHCDC, Greenford, PRDC, Jubilee, Guilford and

Woking, Derby, Coventry,

Leicester, Peterborough, Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich

Chelmsford, Southend, Medway, SEDC, Canterbury,

Tonbridge, Croydon, Gatwick, London Central,

South Warwick, Victoria, Romford and Whitechapel

Container Manager Amazon (All Sites)                           Chris Rogers – 07860 172019

Container Manager International                                     Nalin Mandalia – 07715480197

HWDC and LAMU, Atherstone international

15. Health & Safety Processes

From a Health and Safety point of view the CWU Health, Safety & Environment Department will continue our joint work with Gary Yeo RM National Asset Supply Chain Manager and Ian MacDonald RM National Container Supply & MHE Manager along with the SHE (Safety, Health and Environment) Team and the RMPFS Property Safety and Compliance Team to monitor health and safety throughout the Christmas Operations.

16. IR Aspects

The IR aspects of the Christmas pressure period are dealt with by the Postal Department.  All Operational enquiries should be addressed to the appropriate Postal Department Operational Officer.

Appendixes:-

1. York Container SSoW
2. Cardboard RSC SSoW
3. Roll Cage/’A’ Frame SSoW & ‘Joint Statement’
4. FSC – SSoW
5. Pallets – SSoWs
6. York Mk 4 SSoW & Info/Briefing Docs
7. York Cardboard Sleeve SSoW

Yours sincerely

Dave Joyce
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer

19LTB675 Royal Mail Materials Handling Containerisation Update & Christmas Arrangements 2019 – Health & Safety Aspects

York Container Mk 4 Additional Requirements SSoW v2.1

York and Mini-York Safe System Of Work v3.1

Transportation, Processing, Unloading & Stacking of Pallets

National Communication on MK2 ALP sleeve with CWU

MK2 ALP Fitting Instructions

Foldable Stackable Containers SSOW

Cardboard Sleeve York Container Additional Requirements SSoW v1.1

Cardboard RSCs SSOW

Appendix 7

 

 

CWU Dispute with Royal Mail Group

Further to LTB 662/19, please find attached for your information (Appendix 1) an exchange of correspondence that has taken place today between myself and Rico Back, CEO of Royal Mail Group, the content of which is self-explanatory.

This was an opportunity for Rico Back to respond to all of the issues in the CWU’s open letter (sent on 15^th November 2019) and to reassure everyone that their public offer of talks was genuine. Unfortunately however he has not grasped that opportunity and has failed to answer any of the significant issues raised by the CWU. We can therefore only assume that his letter is another stunt to try and satisfy the shareholders and investors as RMG published their half yearly results.

Sadly his letter is meaningless and offers no more than what has already been offered. Nothing has changed and we will continue to campaign, appeal the High Court injunction and re-ballot if necessary in defense of our Agreements, our members and this great public service.

You will note that I have again requested a proper formal response which addresses all of the issues in the CWU’s open letter, many of which were External Mediator recommendations.

In light of the above, ‘National Gate Meeting Day’ tomorrow needs to be loud and proud, and as powerful as possible because the business, opinion formers, shareholders and investors need to understand that we will not be moved and we will continue to fight until we achieve an acceptable resolution to this dispute.

Branches and Representatives are asked to give this LTB the widest possible circulation and to ensure that it is brought to the attention of all colleagues in advance of National Gate Meeting Day tomorrow. We shall not be moved.

Any enquiries in relation to the content of this LTB should be addressed to the DGS(P) Department.

Yours sincerely,

 

Terry Pullinger

Deputy General Secretary (Postal)  

19LTB674. CWU Dispute with Royal Mail Group

LTB 674.19 Appendix 1 Correspondence Exchanged between DGSP & R. Back CEO of RMG

CWU Young Workers Conference – Tuesday 21^st January 2020

As previously advised in LTB 622/19, the CWU Young Workers Conference will be held on Tuesday 21^stJanuary 2020 at the Marriott City Centre Hotel, 2, Lower Castle Street, Old Market, Bristol, BS1 3AD

Branches are reminded that the closing date for motions to be returned is midnight on Tuesday 10^thDecember 2019.   Motions should be submitted electronically to conferences@cwu.org using the template attached.    All sections of the form must be completed.   Motions will only be accepted if sent to the above email address.

Each Regional Young Workers Sub Committee will be entitled to submit ONE motion to the Conference Agenda.

Each Branch will be entitled to submit ONE motion to the Conference Agenda.

The Young Workers Committee will be entitled to submit THREE motions to the Conference Agenda.

Branches, Regions and the Young Workers Committee are reminded that the Standing Orders Committee will not alter or amend any of the motions submitted therefore it is important that motions are checked before they are submitted.

Branches are reminded that registration for this event will be done using the online registration system.   Once the online site is ready an LTB will be issued with further details.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

A P Kearns

Senior Deputy General Secretary

19LTB673

Young Workers Motion Form 20

Young Workers Guidance 20

Election spending and campaigning 

The purpose of this LTB is to give branches a guide to spending and campaigning in the general election, following on from the information provided at the national briefing on 8th November.

Attached to this LTB are guides from the Electoral Commission on campaigning and spending that set out the rules in greater detail, but the following is a summary of rules branches should be aware of. To be clear, these relate to spending on campaigning/activities that the union is carrying out. Where a Branch or Region has donated money to a local Labour Party the party has separate rules relating to its expenditure that it must comply with.

It is also important to stress that we want branches and regions to be undertaking as much campaigning as possible between now and 12th December and the purpose of this information is to ensure we do so in the right way.

1. Reporting expenditure

After the general election, we will need to report all of our campaigning expenditure by 12th March 2020. This will cover everything that branches, regions and the union nationally has spent between 12th December 2018 and 12th December 2019 on political campaigning.

The test for this is whether spending is on an activity that could “reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against a political party, or categories of candidates, including campaigns on policies or issues closely associated with a particular party or category of candidates.”

We will be asking branches to provide a full breakdown of expenditure after the election date on 12th December – branches must therefore keep a comprehensive record of this, with receipts and invoices, throughout the election.

2. Spending limits

It is important that branches talk to regions about any campaigning activity they are undertaking in advance to ensure this falls within the relevant spending limits. The most important spending limits for branches and regions to be aware of are as follows:

• firstly, there is a maximum spending limit of just £700 for any activity we undertake/material we produce that is specifically about a particular candidate or a particular constituency (e.g. leaflets saying ‘vote for candidate X, in constituency Y’) – this includes any communications to our own members; and
• secondly, there is a maximum spending limit of £9,750 for campaign activity within any one constituency with a generic non-constituency/non-candidate message (e.g. leaflets saying ‘Vote Labour’ without specifying the candidate or the constituency).

Branches should speak to their Regional Secretary about campaigning activities and any expenditure they are planning in advance. This is particularly important where the candidate is a CWU member.

3. Door-knocking and canvassing

We want members to be out door-knocking, canvassing and campaigning as much as possible in support of local Labour Party candidates. It is important that where they are doing so, they do this in their own time and are not accruing expenses (on travel or release). Any expenditure on this would be a donation in kind to the local party and would need to be agreed by them in advance to ensure they do not breach spending limits.

4. Imprints

Any campaign material must include an imprint specifying the name and address of the printer and the promoter. Any CWU campaign material printed by a branch should state on it: Promoted by Dave Ward General Secretary, CWU, 150 the Broadway, Wimbledon, SW19 1RX; Printed by [the relevant CWU branch and its address / the name and address of any external company doing the printing for us].

If a branch or region is printing material for a local Labour party/candidate, the imprint will need to specify that it is printed by the CWU and promoted by the candidate’s agent (or whoever they specify) – the details should be confirmed with the local Labour party.

Finally, for social media graphics or videos, an imprint should be included but if it would not be legible, branches or regions should make sure the union’s logo is visible so it is identifiable as coming from the CWU.

5. Joint campaigning

There are specific rules about how expenditure is declared where there are joint campaign activities. For instance, if we do a joint leaflet or rally with another union and split the costs for it, we would still need to declare the total costs of the leaflet or rally as part of our expenditure (even though we would only have actually paid part of the costs).

Where there are any joint campaign activities branches should talk to their regional secretary about these in advance to check how this needs to be dealt with.

6. Invoices

Where we are paying an external supplier/organisation for services (e.g. printing material) we must ensure that they invoice us within 30 days and that all invoices are paid within 60 days after the general election on 12th December. Where neither of these things happen branches or regions must notify CWU headquarters at the earliest opportunity.

Conclusion

As set out above, we want branches to be as active as possible in the general election and there is a huge amount at stake for our industries and our members. This note is not intended to stop branches campaigning, but to ensure we comply with relevant requirements when doing so – if in doubt branches should speak to their Regional Secretary.

Any queries on the contents of this LTB should be address to gsoffice@cwu.org copying in the relevant Regional Secretary.

Yours sincerely,

 

Dave Ward

General Secretary

19LTB671 – Election spending and campaigning

Overview-of-NPC-activity-Gen

Managing-NPC-campaign-spending-gen

BT PERSONNEL – CWU Representatives and Officers Mental Ill Health Survey

Attached, for the information of the BT Committee, are the outputs of a Mental Ill Health Survey of Branch Representatives and Officers. The purpose of the survey was to understand what mental ill health awareness, guidance or training the representatives have and what they may need to deal with mental ill health issues raised with them from members and other representatives.

The motivation for the survey was Motions 35, 71, and 76 carried at this year’s Conference and the concerns raised by Branches. In order to deal with the issue the team believed we needed to understand how well equipped representatives are to deal with the increasing workload related to mental ill health.

The outputs give valuable insights into the number of representatives who have, or have not, had awareness guidance and training. 128 people responded in total which is approximately 25% of the total number of representatives.

Below is a brief summary of the outputs from the questions.

1. Have you had any form of mental health awareness guidance or training?

All those completing the survey answered the question. 56.7% said YES and 43.3% answered NO.

2. What was the training/guidance you received?

72 people answered this question with 62.5% having undertaken Mental First Aid courses and 37.5% attended other types of courses.

3. Was the training/guidance provided through the CWU, your employer or another party?

Again 72 people answered this question with 61.1% undertaking training with the CWU, 8.0% employer, 9.7% both employer and CWU and 20.8% other.

4. Do you feel that you need mental health awareness guidance/training?

126 people answered this question; 81% of people feel they need guidance and training with 19% not needing further training.

5. What level of training do you feel that you need?

102 people answered the question with 41.2% needing introductory training, 39.2% needing advanced training and 19.6% needing refresher training.

6. Do you think the CWU should provide mental health awareness guidance/training to its representatives?

126 people responded to this question with 98.8% giving a YES response and 3.2% a NO response.

7. Do you think the CWU should be calling on your employer to provide you with mental health awareness guidance/training?

127 seven people responded with 92.1% with a YES response and 7.9% with a NO response.

8. Are there any particular areas of mental health awareness guidance/ training you feel would be helpful to you? (Tick all that apply)

All the five sub questions received high scores with ‘signposting members to get the support they need’ receiving the highest score of 92.7%.

9. What proportion of your time is taken up with mental health issues raised by members?

The answers to this question received percentage scores from 1% to 23% of time taken up dealing with mental ill health issues.

10. Please add any further comments related to your experiences or training needs.

The responses from this question were really useful in helping us determine what representatives need in the way of guidance, awareness and training but also some concerning comments from Branch Officers about their own mental health.

There were 130 comments made with reference to an increasing workload on this issue and a realistic point that Branch Officers need to guide members to experts rather than try to deal with the issue themselves. There is also reference to young people being more likely to raise mental ill health problems.

Most respondents felt that awareness, guidance and training is a help in dealing with the issue, and if the response rate is reflective of our representative base then we have at least 50% of Branch representatives having some form of mental ill health awareness.
In conclusion, this survey has been a valuable exercise. The Personnel Team will respond to the needs of our Branch officials and to make the membership aware that a significant number of their representatives have the awareness to guide them to the help they need. Some of this work has already started.

Yours sincerely

 

 

Dave Jukes
Assistant Secretary

20.11.19 – LTB 670 – BT PERSONNEL – CWU Representatives and Officers Mental Ill Health Survey

LTB 670 – ATTACHMENT 1

POST OFFICE: HORIZON TRIALS – BATES & OTHERS VS POST OFFICE LTD – FURTHER UPDATE

Further to LTBs 234/19 dated 12th April and 292/19 dated 14th May. Branches will be aware of a Group Litigation Action against the Post Office by 557 mainly former Postmasters in relation to alleged errors with the Horizon computer system. 

This matter goes back over a period of more than 10 years and was finally brought to trial after the Justice for SubPostmasters Alliance (JFSA) spent many years campaigning for justice. In January 2016 Alan Bates from the JFSA secured the financial funding (through Therium Group, a specialist litigation funder) to take the Post Office to the High Court. Litigation specialists such as Therium cover the costs of a case in return for a proportion of any damages awarded.

It should be noted that these Postmasters needed to find a source of support as the National Federation of SubPostmasters (NFSP), the only organisation recognised by the Post Office for representing Postmasters, did not meaningfully support the claimants through the various stages of their ordeals (even though a significant number of the 557 have been NFSP members at some point). The NFSP, which was formerly a Trade Union but is now a Trade Association (as it was struck off by the Certification Officer in 2013), has previously been cited by the lead Judge in the Horizon cases as not being independent of the Post Office. This was highlighted in Judge Fraser’s ruling of 15th March 2019 when he stated: 

“It is obvious, in my judgment, that the NFSP is not remotely independent of the Post Office, nor does it appear to put its members’ interests above its own separate commercial interests.”

“The Post Office effectively controls the NFSP”.

Currently there are at least four trials planned in relation to this complex case. A brief synopsis of the trials and decisions so far is as follows:

1. The First Trial – the “Common Issues” Trial – Judge Rules Against the Post Office

The “Common Issues” trial concerning the legal construction of the contract between the Post Office and Postmasters took place in November/December 2018. On 15th March 2019, the Honourable Mr Justice Fraser ruled in favour of the claimants. 

2. Post Office Application for Recusal of the Judge – Mr Justice Fraser

Following the Judge’s ruling against the Post Office and in favour of the claimants in the “Common Issues” trial, on 21st March, the Post Office made an application for the sitting Judge to be recused (remove himself from future trials). The recusal hearing took place on 3rd April and the 77 page judgment was handed down on 9th April. Mr Justice Fraser made the decision NOT to recuse himself from the second trial and indeed the third and fourth trials. The Post Office’s QC asked the Judge for permission to appeal which was not granted. Therefore the Post Office went directly to the Court of Appeal to ask for permission to appeal. 

3. Court of Appeal Refuses Post Office’s Appeal

On 10th May, without a formal hearing, at the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Coulson made the decision to refuse the Post Office’s appeal in regard to the recusal of Judge Fraser.

4. Post Office Appeals the decision of the First Judgment in The “Common Issues” Trial

Judge Fraser also refused the Post Office permission to appeal the “Common Issues” trial judgment. The Post Office therefore applied to appeal directly via the Court of Appeal. However this application was initially rejected by the Court of Appeal due to its length. A shorter application was submitted in June 2019. The Court of Appeal’s decision is expected to be handed down any day now (see 6.a. below). 

5. The Second trial – the “Horizon” Trial Recommences

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision to reject Justice Fraser’s recusal, the second trial, known as the “Horizon” trial recommenced on 4th June (it had been temporarily suspended following the Post Office’s application to recuse the Judge), with the Managing Judge, Mr Fraser residing. This trial finished on 2nd July and a decision is awaited. 

6. Two Decisions/Outcomes Awaited

a. Lord Justice Coulson’s decision on the Post Office’s application to appeal the first trial judgment is anticipated by Friday 22nd November. 

b. The judgment from the Second Trial – the “Horizon Trial” is due any time now.

7. In the Meantime, Mediation is Due to Commence 27th November

Judge Fraser also ordered that the parties should “consider” mediation. During week beginning 14th October, Freeths, the Postmasters’ solicitors, issued claimants a communication stating: 

“an independent and neutral expert is being appointed who has experience in helping to resolve very significant disputes. There will be a mediation meeting with the Mediator in November and we are obviously working very closely with your Steering Committee to plan for that and to decide whether it could offer you, the Claimants, a final resolution that would be in your best interests.”

Some Postmaster claimants may understandably be sceptical in regards to mediation as the Post Office set up a complaint and mediation scheme in 2013 which collapsed within 18 months. In parliament, James Arbuthnot MP (now Lord), who was particularly instrumental in raising this matter in Westminster, described the scheme as a “sham”. However, the parties have now agreed to go ahead with fresh mediation and it is scheduled to commence from 27th November. Freeths noted the following in a statement to the claimants: 

“Progress will be made only if the Post Office demonstrate a significant change in mind set and approach. If mediation gives the Claimants an opportunity to achieve final closure on acceptable financial terms, then that is to be welcomed – if that does not happen, then the litigation obviously continues. Either way, we will not allow the litigation to be held up while mediation happens.”

8. Third Trial Scheduled for 2nd March 2020

The third trial, referred to as the “Quantum” trial is scheduled to commence from 2nd March 2020. This trial will be in relation to how much the Post Office should pay the claimants if they lose. 

Depending on how the mediation talks go, there could well be between four and six trials in total in this case.

9. Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) – cases “Stayed”

Separate to the Group Litigation, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is investigating around 30 Postmaster prosecutions by the Post Office where it is claimed there is a miscarriage of justice. These relate to former Postmasters who have previously been criminally prosecuted and in some cases even imprisoned due to Horizon issues. This investigation began in April 2015 and the cases were “stayed” until after the outcome of the technical aspects of the litigation.

Legal Costs

The Post Office Report & Accounts for the year ending 31st March 2019, published on 15th October, showed legal costs for the 2018/19 financial year were £20m compared with just £3m the previous year. Clearly, the impact of the Horizon cases means the legal costs will have an even greater impact on the current year’s results. In this regard, attached to this LTB is a report (blog) from Nick Wallis, journalist, who has been covering the Horizon Trials from the very beginning. Nick attended a “Costs Hearing” at the Royal Courts of Justice on October 23rd. At this hearing, it transpired that combined costs of the two legal teams were at least £36.3m up to September 3rd this year. This figure is relevant as the Post Office has up until now, had to pay 90% of the claimants’ legal costs as a consequence of losing the cases thus far. Crucially, these figures don’t include the money spent by both parties in preparation for the Court of Appeal hearing. Nick Wallis estimates that the current costs are more likely to be in excess of £42m by now and rising.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Nick Wallis has also reported that at the Costs Hearing, the Judge directed both parties to enter into formal mediation (see point 7. above) via a process called “Alternative Dispute Resolution”. Essentially this is a structured method for resolving matters outside of the court room. The following quote from the Post Office’s Barrister to Justice Fraser is revealing:

“There’s no shying away, my Lord, from the fact that Post Office has spent and proposes to spend a great deal of money seeking to settle the litigation at this stage. It’s seeking to devote resource proportionate to what it’s spending on fighting the case trying to settle it, trying to resolve it by compromise. If one puts the costs of settlement in the context of the total costs of the proceedings, whilst very substantial, they are not out of line.”

Evidently the Horizon litigation has thus far not gone the way the Post Office would have liked and should this direction of travel continue the costs and compensation to the claimants could be colossal. Whatever the end position regarding this matter, what is clear is that public (taxpayers’) monies have been put in jeopardy as a consequence of the actions of the Post Office.

My interpretation of the above is that the Post Office is budgeting to pay in excess of £100m in compensation payments to the 550+ members of the Group litigation claim. It is though highly conceivable this figure will end up being an underestimate of what it will cost the Post Office eventually.

Media Coverage

With regards to media coverage on this matter, it has been fairly quiet recently due to the obvious media focus on Brexit and the General Election, although the story has featured heavily and regularly in Computer Weekly. However, we anticipate there will be a fair amount of coverage following the announcements of the two decisions outlined above, which we expect to be by the end of this month.

Further Details on the Horizon Trials

I would like to remind Branches of the useful website set up by the journalist Nick Wallis who has been following the case closely. Nick provides a concise and clear summary of the events so far. The link to the website is as follows (note parts of the website are free and some sections you have to subscribe to):

https://www.postofficetrial.com/2018/07/about-me.html

Conclusion

I am certain at some point, probably once litigation has concluded, there will have to be some very serious Parliamentary scrutiny and examination of what has actually transpired here and in particular what were the Post Office policies and governance arrangements (bearing in mind that the Post Office is Government owned via BEIS) that have led to these significant legal claims.

Somebody ultimately has to be accountable to these events that have had such a devastating impact on so many people and their families. These Postmasters were ordinary people who were just trying to earn a living whilst providing such an important public service to society. The traumatic impact on so many indicates a gross injustice on a scale that is nothing short of a national scandal.

Further developments will be reported.

Yours sincerely

Andy Furey

Assistant Secretary

19LTB669 Post Office – Horizon Trials – Bates & Others vs Post Office Ltd – Further Update

Attachment 1 to 19LTB669