Cwuo0000010
cwuo0000010
COMMUNICATION WORKERS’ UNION
CIRCULATED TO THE
POSTAL EXECUTIVE ON 84/2015 (PE) ‘B’
18!" June 2015
For consideration at the
Postal Executive Meeting
On 7" July 2015
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUBPOSTMASTERS, POST OFFICE LIMITED
AND CWU
Introduction
It is prudent for us to consider the challenges, opportunities and options for the CWU
given the likelihood that the NFSP special conference next month decides not to enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Post Office in preference to a
transfer of engagements to us or the National Federation of Retail Newsagents.
Under the direction of the General Secretary and with the assistance of the Secretary
of the CWU Postmasters branch, this paper surveys the landscape and reports on a
number of actions taken to protect our interests.
The occupational issues, and the day-to-day relationship with the employer are clearly
issues for the PEC. However, the strategic issues affecting government policy, the
nature of our relationship with the NFSP, and our response to any decision by the
Federation to abandon its independence could all be appropriate to both NEC and
PEC.
Immediate occupational issues
Horizon
As reported in LtB 269/15, issued on 21 April, concern about the approach adopted by
POL to the alleged problems caused to Postmasters by the Horizon operating system
has now been raised directly with the Prime Minister.
There has been a pause in political activity on this during the General Election
period, but POL’s lack of engagement with the mediation process, the attempt to
suppress a report by Second Sight —- the company engaged to investigate alleged
shortcomings of Horizon — and continuing concerns of both CWU and NFSP
postmasters mean that this issue will not subside.
The “Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance” organisation has been set up by mostly ex-
postmasters who believe that they have been unfairly treated. However, the key
individual in JFSA, Alan Bates, is not currently in contact with the CWU postmasters’
branch.
POL’s position has essentially been based on the principle that the Horizon system
cannot go wrong. However, this is not what we, NFSP and JFSA are saying. Our
position is that however robust a computer system there can be and have been
problems.
Due to the collapse of the mediation scheme at least two of our members will almost
certainly now have normal PO disciplinary action taken against them ( because they
are still serving), which will quickly culminate in POL terminating the contract of one
member and forcibly making the other pay back his losses by deduction to pay.
Network Transformation
The same arguments that we have articulated about the NT programme remain
valid as we approach what looks intended to be a period of compulsory change.
However, those who do not wish to participate in NT now seem to comprise of more
relatively new entrants to the business that are in a period of maximum financial
exposure (because costs are front-loaded). For these individuals, the maximum 26
months compensation will not necessarily be a fair reflection on their business or
enough to compensate them for their outlay, or a sufficient sum to make them
change their minds.
For the government to press ahead would amount to “Termination on the Grounds of
Convenience”. This requires a higher level of notice than other sorts of termination of
contract situations, but what constitutes a “reasonable” approach is something that
would need to be tested legally.
Acomplicating factor is that postmaster contracts typically have no end date.
A legal opinion on the ramifications of compulsory termination of contracts would be of
value.
Given that MPs were originally told that NT would proceed on a voluntary basis, an
early question for the new Minister would be “ Is the Government supportive of
compulsory change”, and if (as seems likely ) they say they are not, “What is the
government going todo to stop compulsory change?”
It would seem appropriate to commission — either on our own or jointly - research
work to quantify and validate our concerns about NT, and especially the performance
of Post Office “locals”. Previous work by IPSOS-MORI and Consumer Focus (now
subsumed into Citizens’ Advice) is now quite old.
We would seem to have a number of allies who share our concern at that this process:
the Rural Shops Alliance, Co-Operative Group, the Clearing Banks Associating, Royal
Mail (or their retail customers) Postal workers (i.e.: the CWU members who interact
with locals). A round table discussion to arrive at a shared policy may be productive.
There is no doubt that for the NT process to move into a compulsory phase would be a
step change in the environment.
But if we say to government (as we have done) “You need to pause or even stop; NT is
not working,” what would be the alternative?
With POL
There was an exchange of correspondence with POL in October 2014. This followed
receipt by us of legal advice on the nature of POL’s relationship with the NFSP
following the removal of the Federation from the list of accredited trade unions.
We would need to return to that correspondence in the event of the merger process
being terminated. The exclusivity accorded to the NFSP does not appear to be
consistent with particular legal obligations, especially as it necessarily means that
CWU represented postmasters are excluded from arrangements which determine
their contractual undertakings.
CwuU00000010
Cwuo00000010
CwuU00000010
Cwuo00000010
With the NFSP as reconstituted under a MOU
We have a received a copy of the much-—discussed proposed Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU”) between POL and _ the NFSP. This is attached.
The most salient points of this document can be summarised as follows:
« “NFSP will reconstitute itself as a trade association or similar organisation”
(para 2). The relationship with the PO will be contractual, which raises
the question of EU tendering regulations.
e Under the MOU, The PO (not “POL”) will provide funding of “up to £1.5m” per
annum from 2015/16”. However, “the actual amount required would be based
upon the difference between the revenues derived from the NFSP’s current
membership model and associated membership fees and the maximum
payment of £1.5m pa.” (para 3) This means either that the NFSP will continue
to collect subscriptions and the PO will top that figure up to £1.5m, or that the
current level of total subscription income of around £1.1m will be used as a
benchmark figure by POL in making their calculations. In discussions, CWU.
representatives have described adoption of the MOU as meaning an inevitable
cessation of subscription income — and no-one for m the NFSP has disagreed.
« “Any funding shall be subject to the new organisation agreeing with the PO the
base level benefits offered by the organisation” (Para 3). So the MOU only
works if NFSP agree what services they will offer with the PO.
« “POvwill provide additional funding of no less than £1m per annum as a budget
for grants to the NFSP”. (para 4) Thus the annual gross value of the MOU
is up to £2.5m per annum!"),
“) In correspondence with a postmaster, the Post Office have declined to confirm that
they are a party to the MOU but they did admit to there being a “Grant Funding”
agreement that they could be a party to. This has subsequently been confirmed by the
NFSP.
The relevance of this is that a Grant Funding Agreement is a way around procurement
regulations and POL’s own procurement policy, which explains and justifies the failure
to use a tendering process.
Government policy including HM Treasury and HMRC frown upon public authorities
using the Grant Mechanism when a Contract for Services would drive down a better
price and there are rules to clarify whether a grant or contract should be used. If
funding is by a grant, the criteria for how that grant should be used has to be fairly
loose and not resemble the detail that would be found in a Contract.
However, the NFSP MOU has all the attributes of a Contract and states that the Post
Office would be committed to fund the NFSP for the next 15 years.
This exposes the grant agreement to challenge as it not only is designed to avoid
procurement regulations but seeks to be a mechanism to avoid tax and VAT, and is not
in the “spirit” intended for the purposes of giving grants.
e Para 6 is the review mechanism. At para 6c it says that the “NFSP has not
engaged in activities which are actively detrimental to the PO” — but does not
define what these are. However, further on in para 6, “the PO acknowledges
that the NFSP...must have freedom to undertake activities that protect and
represent their members’ views. In undertaking these activities, the NFSP
agrees that it will not introduce commercial risk to the PO”. This is a very wide
potential prohibition. And while PO remains publically owned, the proposed
TTIP treaty could be prayed-in-aid as the arbiter of “commercial risk” were the
treaty ever to be ratified.
¢ Para 6 details a disputes management procedure which seems reasonably
transparent and has a degree of independence. The real threat to the NFSP’s
freedom is the rest of the contract which ties it to specific objectives and
restraints.
e Para 6's final sub-para says “Should the NFSP disclose PO information that is
confidential or commercially sensitive (as defined in the confidentiality
agreement) or encouragement [sic] of sub postmasters to take action which
conflicts with their contractual obligations, except where all other avenues of
disputes resolution have been exhausted, this will be deemed a material breach
of this agreement.
¢ The list of things that the grant payment can be used for is at Para 9. It
validates our view that a constructively -minded POL would want to invest in
these things anyway. It also turns the NFSP into a delivery arm of the business
for training and support — which complements the view that this contract is
possibly in breach of tendering regulations.
« Para 11 makes it clear that the document and discussions are strictly
confidential. Where the NFSP to have shared this with us, that could lead to
tension in their relationship with POL.
« Para 12 stats that the MOU is dead if NFSP merges with “another” trade union
(of course, this was drafted when the NFSP was also still a union) or “any other
organisation”.
e There is no indication of what the notice period would be if either side decide to
terminate the agreement.
There can be no doubt that the MOU represents the abandonment by the Federation of
any meaningful independence. Our relationship with them and the employer would
necessarily change as a consequence, as the CWU would be the only
organisation of standing able to offer postmasters effective representation.
Moreover, the MOU that the NFSP seems poised to sign will be non binding in law (as
that is the requirement of a grant funding agreement) and their grant will be given at
the pleasure of POL - and removed at their pleasure with no reason having to be
given. If the NFSP go down this route they will have given up all their subscription
income in favour of the grant, so if the Post Office should reduce or withdraw the grant
then the NFSP will be without any income and will be bankrupt.
As the attached NFSP circular shows, members are apparently being mislead to
believe that the MOU will end up as a legally binding contract, with income assured for
the next 15 years.
CWU response
Hitherto, we have declined to comment explicitly on the MOU, not least whilst the
possibility of a transfer of the Federation’s engagements to ourselves was a realistic
possibility.
However, given that adopting of the MOU will have a dramatic impact on all
postmasters, irrespective of whether they are NFSP or CWU members, we have
issued an open letter expressing our concerns. This is designed to reassure CWU
postmasters that at a national level we have a good understanding of their concerns. It
is also intended to make the NFSP postmaster membership aware of our position,
and is a precursor to further communications which will invite those NFSP member
who share our analysis to join with us.
CwuU00000010
Cwuo00000010
CwuU00000010
Cwuo00000010
Strategic Issues
Government policy
Government policy on this area of the postal sector is unclear.
The Conservative manifesto simply pledged to secure the future of 3,000 rural post
offices. There are no further references to Post Office Limited or future funding beyond
2018. However, the manifesto did include a guarantee to a “right to mutualise” in the
public sector. This may re-activate the plans for Post Office mutualisation that have
appeared dormant in recent years.
There are two key individuals with whom we need to establish a relationship. Anna
Soubry MP is the Minister of State at BIS with responsibility for Small Business,
Industry and Enterprise (formerly known as the Minister for Business and Enterprise).
The minister is responsible for:
e business sectors (excluding construction, rail, and retail) and advanced
manufacturing, including low carbon economy
« enterprise
* competiveness and economic growth, including economic opportunities and
shocks
« Business Bank and access to finance
« Green Investment Bank
« deregulation and better regulation
e local and regional growth
* export control
« Royal Mail and the public data group
e Insolvency
e Oversight of the Shareholder Executive Portfolio (inc POL)
During the 2010 dispute, Ms Soubry become embroiled in a row with the CWU when
she misrepresented the letters of concern she had received in her constituency
(http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tell-sway-MP/story-12221625-detail/story.html)
However, contacts at BIS have advised that the minister with responsibility for post
Office issues will be Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-neville-rolfe/4284 - though this
isn't on the BIS website yet - an email the Post Office sent to staff also states this).
Anna Soubry will be responsible for the ownership of Royal Mail, which has been
separated out from postal (and post office) issues in bis since the run-up to
privatisation. It is not yet clear which Minister will answer questions on post office
issues in the commons, but Neville-Rolfe is the one with ultimate responsibility. We
are seeking an urgent meeting with her given our concerns about the future of POL
and the post office network.
Another key individual, who has not yet been appointed, is the chair of the All-party
Parliamentary Group on Post Offices, assuming it is reconstituted. In the last
Parliament, this position was held by Labour MP Russell Brown, who was defeated in
the General Election.
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/post-offices.htm )
Moreover, the secretariat to the group in the last Parliament was provided by the
NFSP. The person that provided this work has left so it is unclear if the NFSP has the
resource to replace him.Given the likelihood of their contractual relationship with the
Post Office, it raises the question of how appropriate such a relationship would be
anyway.
The alternative to NT
Network Transformation has been positioned by POL as the only strategy for
protecting the long term viability if the UK post office network. The NFSP have
embraced this approach and been handsomely rewarded for it.
Yet there is significant evidence that the market is not as moribund as assumed. New
entrants in the sector show that there is a market for subpost office type services. but
it is still unclear (and worthy of investigation) where customers are coming from, and
how price aware they are.
One obvious area for consideration (or reconsideration) is Postbank. This is because
there have been a steady migration of potential (and probably actual) customers from
clearing banks who have closed many branches, to post offices. The latter are acting
an as clearing agents rather than full-blown alternatives, but this does not have to be
the case.
Given that all the main clearing banks have contacts with POL, it would be a
relatively small step to expand current activity to include the sale of many financial
products, and acting a a “shop window’ for the banks. (An investment programme
would almost certainly be needed as part of this scenario — a standard design to
enable banking and postal services to be offered form the same premises).
POL standards are in any event problematic. Industry-level returns are not being paid
to postmasters, and little discretion is possible on selling techniques.
Moreover, given that other mail service providers also use locals as a drop-off and
collection point, there is little brand protection for RM. There would seem to be a
clear community of interests here in that if the products and service offered are
sufficiently attractive, RM will be willing to drop the competition and increase the
penetration of their own offerings.
The CWU did quite a lot of work in 2011-12 criticising NT and pushing for a Post Bank
through the coalition (which included the FSB and Countryside Alliance). Consumer
Futures and the BIS Select Committee also looked at and highlighted issues with
Locals and the Fabian Society produced a report commissioned by the NFSP on the
need to grow revenues.
The limited traction that these proposals generated is relevant for the union in thinking
about some of the recommendations and whether things need to be done differently,
and what it is we could (realistically) aim to achieve.
The terminal decline of POL?
It is widely agreed that POL is a business in almost existential crisis. It has been
divorced from Royal Mail, which provides the vast majority of its business, with no
guarantee of retaining the RM contract beyond the initial phase. Yet POL cannot be
regarded, and is not sustainable, as simply a retail operation. It would have been an
ideal network for the once and briefly mooted Bank of Big Society, but government
contracts to give that concept meaning have been awarded to competitors.
Yet there is no other organisation that can replace POL's responsibility as the
ultimate provider of the “last shop in the village” in 3000 locations.
CwuU00000010
Cwuo00000010
Even if we were to successfully argue for the NT process to be paused or suspended,
are POL'’s problems such that the business is in terminal decline? If we are
pessimistic about being able to change the direction of travel, ought we instead to look
at alternative means of securing the future of the Post Office Network?
Alternative arrangements include the mutualisation proposals from 2011 but this would
still leave the network vulnerable because it does not address the interaction between
post offices and their suppliers and customers. “Last shop” locations are particularly
exposed.
Additional alternatives include a reorientation of post offices, and restructuring POL
such that the post office network becomes Royal Mail’s retail division, with post offices
under the RM rather than POL umbrella. RM would manage the relationship with
clearing banks as part of “post bank” operation. (Such a restructuring could also
address the current problems of POL’s relationship with RM described in the preceding
section.)
If such restructuring was allied to specific devices to build speed and efficiency through
the network (such as standard sizing and maximising pre-payment, and a
comprehensive upgrade of the IT infrastructure), it would be an integrated plan to
counter the self-fulfilling decline of NT.
The position of the “last shop” offices could be regulated in a more bespoke fashion —
by designating such offices as having special status and supporting them, accordingly.
Funds could be raised by the introduction of a specific levy on other products and
services, and a powerful alliance of rural interests could be constructed in support of
such an approach.
Inevitably our “air time” with Ministers will be limited. We will need to build alternative
solutions as part of our representations in order to maximise the time for which we can
hold the attention of those in positions of influence.
In any transition plan, clear assurances would be needed at any early stage — but if the
goal is sufficiently attractive, these cannot be discounted as unreasonable.
The future options for the Post Office network, and our role in shaping them will be the
subject of a separate paper with recommendations for future activity.
Summary of Actions Taken
Drawing together the strands of this paper, the following actions have been taken in
support of the union’s objectives:
¢ Weare seeking a legal opinion on what constitutes a “reasonable” approach in a
“Termination on the Grounds of Convenience” scenario.
« Through our own legal advisers, we are making contact, and seeking to share
information, with solicitors employed by the JFSA on Horizon cases.
e Weare exploring the possibility of commissioning — either on our own or jointly -
research work to quantify and validate our concerns about NT, and especially the
performance of Post Office “locals”.
e Consider convening a roundtable discussion of key stakeholders to develop
shared policy
e Weare revisiting our recruitment strategy for subpostmasters and have responded
promptly to the recommendation being made to the NFSP special conference.
CwuU00000010
Cwuo00000010
¢ Commission research to scope possible and innovative futures for the Post Office
network (which is not the same as the future of POL).
« Weare seeking a legal view on the legitimacy of POL supporting a reconstituted
NFSP by grant funding instead of via a contract.
* Inthe event of the NFSP adopting the MOU, we will make an application to
provide the secretariat of the APPG on Post Offices, assuming it is reconstituted.
¢ We have followed up correspondence from October 2014 by seeking an early
meeting with the POL Chief Exec.
e We have asked the Minister (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) for an early meeting. (A
meeting with Anna Soubry on Royal Mail issues has already been arranged).
RECOMMENDATION: That the document be noted
Dave Ward Andy Furey
General Secretary Assistant Secretary
‘The Future of the
Nation Fed Subpostm
CwuU00000010
Cwuo00000010
CWU00000010
cwuo00000010
In Strctest Confidence Subject to contract
‘POST OFFICE LIMITED {POSTOFFICE) AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUBPOSTMASTERS (NFS)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE TERMS OF THE FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS OF NASP
smeTaopUCHON/coNText
Post Office wishes to continue to ensure that there i effective engagement betwen its branch
‘operators and the management structures within the organisation ~ itis avery large, comatex
‘organisation made up of more than 8,000 soparate businesses.
‘A mechanism for this would be’ strong and credible body that i the vole ofthe U's port office
‘operators which caneflect views that add value to the overall Post Office customer proposition
‘through effective challenge, contribution to business/operationai/arodtct development und aiso
‘provide a range of benefits to operators: Ourjoint hele s that this will be commercially beneficial
to both Post Offica and operators, bj helping to drive the development of products and services
which are more attractive and relevant to our customers and Identifying eaportunties to do things
‘more efficient and effectively.
‘The'Nationat Feieration of SubPostmastars (NESP) is curtently an independent membershia
‘organisation supporting-operators of Post Office branches across the UK and is considered t0 be Ir'a
Unique position to provide benefits to these operators. For over 100 years, the NFSP and the Post
Office have worked clasely together to help maintain the important role post offices playin
(providing a wide renge of services to the communities of the UK. NFSP recognises and suipports the
objectives and requirements of Network Transformation.
‘Over 9 period of tine, NFSH intends to redefine is organisational Babign and constitution, moving
‘away from Trade Union status toa new organisation similar toa trade association. tis anticipated
‘that the aims of the new organisation wil be to {i} create a function that reflects and supports the
‘widor range of Post Office operators that will exist post Network Transformation, {il develop its role
‘to take account of the changes & challenges in the industry and (il) introduce skis into its
organisation. These goals efiect its objective to help operators improve how they run their business
and ains to increase operators’ profitability potertally through sales growth and driving efficiency,
building on its role a5 the voce ofthe UK's past office operators.
“To support this new organisation, from 2035, Post Office will provide funding of £3.5 milion per
‘annum on the terms set out below. As part of this averll funding, any operator who contracts with
ost Office by er after October 3 2015 {ether through taking ona new branch or converting an
existing branch to a new model, or has previously signeld a Main or Local contract and Community
branches which receive investment wil at no charge'te the operator, automatically be able to gain
access to the brenefits to be provided by the new organisation and have the opportunity to
participate inthe (evolving) governance structures of the NFSP. azn Apail1"2036; all operators
uli be able to gain access to the benefits to be provided at no charge. ~
Subject to coatract
‘mn Strictest Confidence - Sabjeét To contract
in addition, Post Office will provide specie grant funding of no less thai £m pet year on the terms
set out below fora range of activities thatthe new organisation will undertake ta'enhance the
benefits they provide to Post Office operators.
‘is the intention for this funding frainéwork to ext for 8 termi of 15 years subject to achievement
of the objectives euthined within tis document.
‘This documett i a description ofthe framework in which such funding willbe provided
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TERRA:
A. Term -35 years
2._ NFS 'seanis~HESP wil reconstitute itself asa trade’ astociation Or similar anganisation and the
‘ew organisation would be acknowledged by Post Oifice'asthe sole Body Tor opecators that
Post Office would engage with under the térnis of each operator's cattrac.
‘3. Organisational aupiport payment ~Post Office would provide funding forthe day to-day
‘operation of the new organisation of up to £1.Sm per anaumn from 2015/16. Funding is subject
‘to review {see below) aid to's Terms of the Frameork Asréément generally. The actual
amount required vould be baied upon the difference between the revenues derived from the
NFSP'scurcent miainbarshig modal wed associated mienibship feos and the maxim
‘payment of £1:5m per year. Ay fining shal be subject to thie new drpanisation agreeing With
Post Office the base level beiits offered by the organivtin hich willbe included in the
Framework igreement. In fetu; NFSP wil i reaconable endeavours to maintain existing
subscription types and subsevition rate forall subnestmasters oo tractionel contracts.
Grant funding ~ Post Office wil provide daditional Funding Of no less thin Elm per aniium ase
¢ budget for gram tothe WFSP, Pos Office and the NFSP only commit to develop a panto
delve’ additional uctivtes for tie benefit oPoparators. The agreed Budiget wil be jointly
administered and ring-fenced until svitable grants can be agreed. "The Brocess and erteria for
agreeing suitable grants Wl be included inthe Framework Agreement.
Benilts to operators ~ ail operators who sign up, or have signed ap-to' new Post Office wiode!
contract, ether at an existing operator, new operator or aan existing subpdstmaster
converting to 2 hev contract and Community branches which FeéeWve lavestment; would
‘utomatically be able to gain access to-the benefits provided By the new organieation and have
‘the opportunity ta participate in the (evolving) governare# starctures free of charge,
5, Review Post Office and NSP will undertake regular Joint evaluations in order to assess
whetherit can be reasonebly demonstrates that:
2. all operating mode! types are appropriately represented by the new organisation
18. NESP is on courde'to transition or has tronstionéd ta itsnew organisation structure
‘by no tater than {dt},
Subject to contract
CWU00000010
cwuo00000010
tn Strctest Contidencs
~ Subject to contract
‘<._the NFSP has not engaged in activities which ae actively etrimertal to the Post
office
Post Otfice and NFSP will establistia reasonable set of actions to be undertaken as a result of
the evaluations.
In-the event of Post Office and WESP fit being able to reach an agreed outcome tothe
‘evaluations or the agreed set of actions ate not undertaken, either party has the option to
‘commence a dispute resolution process, design to be determined within the Framework
‘agreement, including an appropriate escalation procedure and then, if necessary, the
appointment of an external neutral &xpe’t appointed Jainty by NSP, Past Ofie fand BIS] to
undertake 3 further evaluation, .
In relation to Clause 6c above, Post Office acknowledges thatthe NFSP in its release
representative of sub-postmasters must have the freedom to undertake ectivites that
protect andrepresent their members’ views: Ir undertaking these:actvities the NFSP agrees
‘hott will not introduce commiercia! risk to the Post Office:
‘Where Post Office and the NFSP have a dispute in elation'Yo the above, they will follow the
dispute vesolution provess as agreed the Framework Agreémient, This wil foow an
‘ecalation process between the two parties and fat the end of this prozéss, ermutually
acceptable resolution has not been identified, the parties willthen use an independent
mediator (sourced from CEDR) to clase down this action.
‘Should the NES disclose Past Office inforriation that i confidential or commercially
sensitive (9s defined within the confidentiality agreerivent} or encouragement of lb
‘postmiasters to take action which confit with their contractual obligations, except where
allother avenues of resolution have been exhausted, thisivil he deemed a material breach
of this Agreement. Ntateria Breach will immediately Wiggér the dispite recolation process:
‘and should the situation not be eimedied within an agreed timescale (daz), then the Post
Office'will have the right to Serve notice’ on this wgreenint.
[NESP support for Network Transformation, Post Office and the NESP have worked closely
‘on developing the revised appédiath to Network Transfaemation: The NFSP therefore
undertakes to suppor the rollaut ofthe programme en-both the agreed rina!
arrangements for Network Transforiation-and plan for Network Transformation trough to
complete conversion ofthe nor-commuity network by 2018, NESP end Post Office will
work closely together to ensure that the objectives and requirements of Network
Transformation are effectively communicates and embraced by current sobpostmasterv'and
future operators.
‘Organisational support payment operational furding =the will include thie following core
elements:
+ Funding the day to day operation ofthe new organisattor
+ NFSP membership of PO User Counci/engagement structires
Subject to consract
CWU00000010
cwuo00000010
CWU00000010
cwuo00000010
i Sivetast Confidence - Subjact to contract
Grant funding -benefits provided by NESP —NFSP is required to provide dear and
-measurable benefits to operators in return forthe funding.A list of possisle benefits is set
‘aut below:
NBSP provide sls taining in certain areas asthe recognised experts in these areas -
“focussed on operational aspects.
+ Provide input into operational/produet/businass develépment including business case
aavelopment.
“+ Support forthe sales drveof PO Business insurance.
> Support for other Post Office sales programmhes tb éperstors and eistoriers) incuding
omiine
+ Payment for agreed NéSP campaigns:
‘+ Joint publication administered exe. by NFSP.
+ Business development seed fund linked to cofimerciataciviérient
“+ Business development resource secondment
"Support forservice retention ir service issue branthes
+ Support for Mystery shopping
+ Support for Branch Standards
+ Support for Commercial transfers
+ Suppart to prospective/ne operators.
‘Support for Recruitment activity
Sales support to Local authorities
Development of Network Expansion
Support/atimin of Agents Engagetnent Strvey
Support far local Corporate Social Resporsibitty sctvity
Support for Stakeholder Forurn/Mutualeation journey
Provision of retaif stationery distribution
‘Assist identifying and rez
ing Serica delivery eee
110. The parties acknowledge that this Memorandum of Understanding sets out the grintiples
‘that wil form the basis Gta Framework Agreement ta be developed jointly by the partes {in
‘consultation with 85) withthe intention that a legally binding Framework Agreement will be
negotiated, published and in place by dore] 2024.
{14 These proposals and the wider dlscucsfons on this subject Setween Post Office aid the NFSP
are private and confidential und are not tobe circulated orshsred with anyone (other than
the shareholder of Past Office} without the other partys express written consent.
112. This Memorandum of Understanding wit cease t have any furtHer effect ifthe NESP merges
with 2 trade union or any other organisation or does not ratify and slope it st the relevant
‘Special Conference:
Post Otic Limited Nations! Federation of Subpostmasters
Sebjectto contract