I wish to advise you regarding a number of issues considered by the Monitoring Group at a meeting held on 19th February 2008.  Attached for your information are the decisions issued by them in their determination of the 28th February 2008.

These relate to

• Displaced Managers competing for Postal Operative Positions
• POC’s that do not secure a position with predominantly POC work
• Postal Sorters that do not secure a position with predominantly Postal Sorter work
• Clerical Grade and Pay – Income Protection
• Mark Time Cessation

28th February 2008.

Re An Post / CWU - Issues raised with Monitoring Group on
19th February 2008

Dear Sir,

Having considered the points made by both the Company and the Union the Monitoring Group is of the view that the issues raised should be resolved in the following way:

Displaced Managers competing for Postal Operative Positions

While  the Agreement provides that managers who fail to secure appointment to a rnanagerial level position would be given first option on Postal Operative positions it is the view of the Monitoring Group that displaced managers who fail to seek management level positions should not get first option unless the available management level positions would entail significant changes in working terms and attendance liabilities such as would make it unreasonable to force the manager to apply for such it position. Should the Manager fail to apply for available positions with reasonable terms and attendance liabilities, having regard to his attendance patterns prior to redesign, then the manager should be afforded the option of postal operative positions in line with his company seniority.

Post Office Clerks who fail to secure a position with predominantly POC work

The Union has referred to the Monitoring Group, for review and determination, the issue of existing Post Office Clerks (POCs) who do not secure a job where the redesigned work schedule predominantly contains work currently graded at POC level.

The Collection & Delivery  Work Practice Change Agreement sets out at 8.3.1 that:
'On the implementation of redesigned collection and delivery working in a DSU all Post office Clerks, Postal Sorters and Postpersons in the DSU will be positioned at Postal Operative level .. '
The Agreement further sets out at 14.2.1 that:
'... At Postal Operative level they will be liable to perform the full range of duties previously undertaken by  the Post Office Clerk, Postal Sorter and Postperson grades. '

It is clear from the Agreement, therefore, that POCs are liable for the full range of duties pertaining to the Postal Operative grade and consequently there would not normally be a requirement for the Monitoring Group to issue a Determination on this matter. However, the Company has made it clear, during discussions between the parties leading to the agreement, that arising from the Initial Staffing Process it was not its intention that existing staff hired as POCs would be compelled to perform work which is currently performed by the Postperson grade.

Historically a distinction has existed between the work of POCs and that of Postpersons. Consequently, it is the Monitoring Group’s decision that under the Initial Staffing Process (chapter 8) where an existing POC does not succeed in securing a job where the redesigned work schedule predominantly contains work currently graded at POC or Postal Sorter level, the individual should exceptionally he offered the option of VS/ VER as appropriate.

Postal sorters who fail to secure a position with predominantly postal sorter type work

The Company and the Union have agreed that Post Office Clerks who fail to secure positions with predominantly POC work should not be forced to take up a Postal Operative position and should be facilitated under the Severance Scheme. The union is now seeking a similar arrangement for Postal Sorters.
The Monitoring Group is satisfied that it is entirely reasonable to have agreed this change in respect of POCs, some of whom will never have been engaged on postal sorting or delivery. However it does not accept that the same justification exists in the case of sorters, all of whom will have done delivery work during their careers. Equally the group feels that, had it been clear to the Company that a claim for sorters to be treated similarly to POCs would follow as a consequence of the agreement reached in respect of POCs, the company might not have agreed the matter for POCs. Accordingly, the group does not find merit in this claim. However the company should agree that cases of special hardship should be considered 011 their merits should any arise.

Clerical Grade and Pay income protection

A dispute bas arisen as to the operative date for the phasing out of income protection payments agreed under the Clerical Grade pay agreement.The company is of the view that the phase out should have applied from the retrospective payment date recommended by the Labour Court. The union claims that it should apply from the date of implementation of the changes contained in the agreement.

The Monitoring Group is of the view that a phase out cannot be implemented in retrospect and accordingly supports the union claim in this case.

Mark Time Cessation

The Collection & Delivery and Clerical & Administrative Work Practice Change Agreements provide for the cessation of the Mark Time Scheme.

Following the application of the buyout of the Scheme as provided for  in those Agreements, an issue of interpretation in respect of staff promoted to Grades covered by the Scheme was referred by the Union to the Monitoring Group for clarification.

The Union had contended that staff promoted to a grade covered by the Mark Time Scheme who had not received any Mark Time Payment in the 52 weeks prior to the introduction of the Change Allowance, should be eligible for the buyout. The Company had not accepted  this position.

Following very careful consideration of the views expressed by both parties, the Monitoring Group is satisfied that the Company's interpretation regarding the application of he Scheme is the correct one. In arriving at its decision, the Monitoring Group noted that any increase in basic pay arising out of a regarding or promotion gave rise to a revision downwards in the individuals existing Mark Time baseline.  In not being in receipt of any Mark Time payment effectively their earnings had overtaken the value of their protected allowances.

Given that the intention of the Mark Time Scheme was to protect the loss of certain pensionable allowances, promoted staff, not in receipt of a Mark Time Payment in the previous 52 weeks prior to the introduction of grade and pay restructuring, have been dealt with fairly and in accordance with  the Agreements by the Company.

In addition, the Monitoring Group also notes that the position outlined by the Union had applied in the case of SDS, but accepts the Company's position that it had been paid in error.