|
This page updated: 09-Apr-2008
|
Every year the Branch Committee make recommendations on who we believe will best serve your interests at a national level.
This year we again strongly urge you to vote for Noel McClean from our own Branch and those overleaf with the reasons why.
The last year will go down as one of the most memorable in recent history. This year we are recommending the majority of last years executive council, as we believe this is a time for stability.
We still face ongoing attacks on our pensions and threats from the regulator. We must ensure that our national representatives are fit for those challenges.
This is your chance to vote for your leaders.
This is your chance to make a difference.
Please use it.
The Branch Committee recommend the following for your vote:
Noel McClean: Eastern Number Five. Mark Baulch: East London Postal. Phil Browne: Newcastle Amal.
John Farnan: Eastern Number Six. Mick Kavanagh: Coventry Area. Pete Keenlyside: Greater Manchester.
Dennis Kilgariff: South Central No 1. Carl Maden: London South West Postal.
Joe Malone: Scotland No 5. Lesley McLean: Romford Amal. Davie Robertson: Glasgow & Dist Amal.
Sean Tait: Kent Invicta. Ian Ward: SE London Postal and Counter.
The members of Oundle Delivery Office have voted to oppose Royal Mail’s plan to close the office. Closure is not the only option that Royal Mail should be looking at. Relocation of the office within Oundle as an option, along with the announced plan of relocating the office to Peterborough, should be investigated.
The CWU have various concerns regarding Royal Mails announced plan, which we will be raising with the employer.
The Eastern Number 5 Branch of the Communication Workers Union has an excellent track record with supporting our members in fighting office closures and we will be using every available method to support our members at Oundle.
Royal Mail has agreed to extend the closing date for staff to join the Pension Scheme until the end of February 2008. One of the reasons being is that talks are still taking place nationally.
At a meeting which I recently attended where a national officer and members of the Postal Executive were in attendance it was obvious that CWUHQ cannot accept the present Pension proposals. It is obvious that they are looking for a continuation of the final salary scheme, albeit in a different form to the one we presently enjoy. Obviously the strength of the scheme is dependent on future valuations and the Post Office’s Business Plan.
So what could these changes be? Obviously removing the pension at sixty and putting it back to say sixty two or sixty three would be one option, or increasing the percentage paid by members of the scheme would be another or temporary variations to the scheme through to the next valuation or the completion of the present Business Plan.
Problems will of course remain of an aging pensioner base, changes to the state retirement age, reduction in the size of the workforce and pressure caused by future pay rises.
Further costing exercises are being carried out by CWUHQ, further legal advice has been taken and talks are continuing.
Chris Hunt
Area Processing Rep
5.2.2008