Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION
Circulated to the NEC No. 114/15
National Executive Council
On 18 June 2015
(For consideration of the NEC at
its meeting scheduled
for 25" June 2015)
National Federation of Sub-postmasters, 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.
Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
2
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.
A complicating 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.
Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
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?
Relationship issues
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.
With the NFSP as reconstituted under an 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:
e “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.
Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
4
e “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.
e “PO will 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!’).
[1] 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.
e 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.
Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
5
e The list of things that the grant payment can be used foris at Para 9. It
validates our view that a constructively -minded POL would want to invest in
these things anyway. It alsoturns 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.
e 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.
e 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 misled 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.
Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
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:
« 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
« Local and regional growth
* export control
« Royal Mail and the public data group
« Insolvency
« 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
Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
7
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 sub-post 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.
Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
8
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.
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 “airtime” 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.
Cwuo00000076
cwuo00000076
9
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:
e We are seeking a legal opinion on what constitutes a “reasonable” approach in a
“Termination on the Grounds of Convenience” scenario.
e 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 We are revisiting our recruitment strategy for sub-postmasters and have
responded promptly to the recommendation being made to the NFSP special
conference.
e Commission research to scope possible and innovative futures for the Post Office
network (which is not the same as the future of POL).
e We are seeking a legal view on the legitimacy of POL supporting a reconstituted
NFSP by grant funding instead of via a contract.
e In the 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.
e 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 SIMON SAPPER
GENERAL SECRETARY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
aps
nfspcomp001. pdf
Cwuo00000076
cwuo0000076
10
4 Strictest Confidence ~Subject to eoatract
POST OFFICE UNITED {POST OFFICE] AND THE WATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUBPOSTMASTERS (MFSP)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OW THE TERNS OF THE FUNDING AREANGERENTS OF NFS?
ineTRODUCHON/CoNTEXT
Post Office wishes to continue fo ensure that there is ekfectve engagement between its branch
‘operators and the management structures within the organisation =i is'@ very large; complexe
organisation made up of more than 8,000 separate businesses.
[A mechanism for this would be a strong and credible body that isthe voice of the UK's post ofRee
‘operators which ean reflect views that add value'to the overal Post Oifice customer proposition
through effective challenge, contribution to business/operational/product developrtent and 3iso
provides range of benefits to operators. Cur joint belief is that this will be commercially beneficial
20 both Post Office end operators, by helping to drive the-davelopmant of products and services
which are more attractive and relevant to our customers and identiving opporturities te do things
more efficiently and effectively,
‘The Nationa! Felevaticn of SubPostmaars (NFSP} le currently an indaperident snembershio,
‘organisation supporting operators of Post Office branches across the UK ane is considered to be Ina
Unique position to provide benefits to these operators: For over 100 years, the NFSP and the Post
Office have worked casely together to help maintain the important rote post offices play in
providing @ wide range of services to the corimurities ofthe UK. NFSP recognises and supports the
objectives and requirements of Network Transformation,
‘Over period of tie, NFSP intends te redefine te organicatianal dasign and consition, moving
away from Trade Union status toa mew organisation sinifor toa trade association. tt anticipated
‘thatthe aims of the naw organisation willbe to ("create 2 function that reflects and supports the
wider range of Pst Office operators thet will exist post Network Transformation, (i) develog ts role
to take account ofthe changes & challenges in the industry and (il) introduce skits into its
‘organisation. These goals Feflect its objective to help operators improve hol they run their busifess
and aims to ticrease operators’ profitability potertialy through sales growl and driving efficiency,
building on its role asthe volee ofthe Us set office oparators.
“To support tis new organksation, from 2015, Post Office wil provide funding oF E15 milion per
annum on the terms st out below. As part this overall Funding, any operator who contracts with
Pott Office by or after October 1 2015 (either through taking cn'w new branch’ conueeting an
existing branch to a new model, or has previously signed a Main or Local contract and Coramurity
Branches which receive investment wil' at ne charge to the operator automatically be able to goin
acces to the benefits tobe provided by the new orpanistion and have the opportutty to
participate inthe (evotving) governance structures ofthe NFSP. Feom Andis" 2016, all operators
ill be able to gain access to the benehts to be proved at no charge. ~
Subject tocontiact
11
ictest Confidence: Sabjact to contact
in edeition, Post Ofice wit provide specific grant flding of no less thai £m per year onthe tarme
set out below fora range of activities thatthe new organisation will undertake to enhance the
benefits they proviie to Post Office operators.
‘tis the tention for this finding framework to
of the objectives outlined within this document.
fora temmi of 1S years subject to achievement
“Thié dociment i @ description of the Yrarnework in which such funding willbe provided.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TERIA:
1. Term a5 years
2., RESP status -NFSP wil reconstitute itself asa trade astdciation Ge similar oreiniation and the
new erganigation would be acknowledged by Past Office asthe sole body for cprators that
Post Office would engage with under the terms of each dperator’s contract.
‘3. Organisationa’ support payment ~Post Office would provide funuing forthe dy to day
‘operation of the new organisation of up to 1.5m per annum from 2025/16. Fimding's subject
10 reviews {See teiow) and to the tei of the Framework Agreement generally. Theactual
amount require would be Hated Upon the difference batweah the revenues derived from the
NFSP's current iembérshio riodél and associated mentbership fees and the maximum
payment of £1.5m serviear. Any hinding’shal be subject tothe new organisation’ agreeing with
Post Ofice the base level ben efits offered by the organisation which will be lnchided in the
Framework Agreement. Infeturn; NFSP will use reasonable endeavours to maintain existing
subscription type end subscription rates forall subpostimasters on vaditionst contracts,
4. Grant funding ~ Post Gffice wil provide additional Faring of no leds than Ete per aniium' as &
I bud for rants to'the NFSP, Post Office and the NFSP joint commaitto develop a pian to
oliver additional activities for te Benefit 6¥ énerators. The detect budget Wil ke jointly
administered and ring fenced uit suitable grants can be agreed. The process and criteria for
‘agreeing suitable erants wil be ince in the Framework Agieement.
Benelits to operators ~ all operators who'sign up or have sighed up, 10.8 new Pokt Office mode!
contract either a¥an existing operator, new operator or as a exiting subpostmaster
‘converting to a new contract nd Community branchés which Fecéivefovestment: would
‘automatically be able gain access to-the benefits provided by the new orgenisation and have
‘the opportunity to participa in the (evolving) governance structures free of charge.
5, Review Post Office rid NFSP will undertake regular joim evatuatlons in order torassess
whether it can be reasonably demonstrated that:
2. alloperating mode! types are appropriately represented by the new orgaisstion
‘8. NFSP ison course to transition or has transitioned to its new organisation structure
‘by no later than {date}.
Subjectto comeact
Cwuo00000076
cwuo0000076
I. Organisational support payinent - operational funding ~ thie wil inci
12
Subject to contract
the NESP has not engaged in activities which ate tively detrimental to the Past
of
Post Office and NFSP wil establish a reasonable set of actions tobe undertaken asa result of
the evaluations,
in the event of Post Office and NFSP fot being sble to rénch’an agreed outcoine to the
‘evaluations or the agreed set of actions aye not undertaken, either party ha the option to
commence a dispute resolutiori process; design to be determined within the framework
agreement, including an appropriate escalation procedure and than, Hnezezsary, the
appointment of an external neutral expert ‘appainted jointly by NESP, Post Office jand BIS] to
undertake a further avaluation.
In relation to Cause 6¢ aiove, Pst Office acknowledge that the NFSP in its rale asthe
representative of sub-postmasters must have the freedom to undertake activities that
protectand represeet their members views. In undertaking these activities the NFSP agrees
‘hati will not intcoduce commiercal sk to the Post Office:
Where Post Office and the NESP havea dispute in relation W the above, they wil follow the
spate resolution process as agreed ithe Framework Agreement, Thiewil Follow an
‘escalation process between the two parties and if at tie ei ofthis process, amutually
acceptable resolution has not best identified, the parties will then use-an'midependent
‘mediator {sourced from CEDR) to close down this action.
‘Shoiid iw NESP disclose Post Office infrnation that & confidential or commercially
sensitive (es defined within the éonfidentiality agreement) or encouragement of sub
‘postmasters to take ction which conflicts with their contractual ablgations, except where
<allother avenues of resolution have-been exhausted; fhis Will he deemed 3 material braach
ofthis Agreement: Mateial Breach will immediately tigger the Wispite resélution process
‘and should the situation not be etadied within an agread timescale [x days) then the Post
‘Office wil have the right to erva'hotice on this ugreerient:
INFSP suppiort for Network Traniformatian. Post Office end the NFSP have worked closely
‘on developing the revised appadeh to Network Transformation: The NFSP therefore
Unidertakes to support the rolloit ofthe programme on both the agreed financial
_arrangements for Network Transfortiation and plan for Network Transformation through to
“complete conversion ofthe non-commuity network by 2018, NFSP and Post Office will
‘work closely together to ensure that the objectives and requirements of Network
‘Trensformation are effectively communicated and embraced by current subpostmasters and
‘future operators.
following core
blements:
+ "Funding the day to day operation of the new organisation
+ NSP membership of PO User Couneil/engagement structures
Subject to contact
Cwuo00000076
cwuo0000076
13
1 Strctast Confident - Subject to contract
Grant furdiog - benefits provided by NESP'-NFSP is raquired to pve clear and
measurable benefits to operators in return forthe funding. A list of possible berteis is set
cout below:
1 FSP provide sits training in certain areas as the recognised exparts in these avéas -
focussed on operational aspects.
Provide input into operational/prodict/business development including business tase
development.
Support for the sales drive of PO Business insurance
‘Support for other Post Office sales programmes (to @perators and custorners inching
onine
Payment Yor agreed NESP campaigns:
Joint publication administered ete. by NFSP.
usiness development seed fund linked to cammercial chievertient
Business development resource secondment:
‘Suppor for service retention in service issue branch
Support for Mystery shopping
‘Support for Granch Standards
‘Support for Commercial transfers
Support to prospective/new operators
‘Support for Recruitment activity
Sales support to Local Authorities
Develonment of Network Expansion
‘Support/admin of agents Engagement Survey
‘Support for focal Corporate Socal Responsibility activity
‘Support for Stakeholder Forum/Mutualisation journey
Provision of retal stationery distribution
Asst in identifying and resolving service delivery wsves
10. The parties acknowledge tat this Memorandum of Understanding sets eut the principles
‘that will form the basis of a Framework Agieement to be developed joitly by the perties (in
‘concultation with 8) with the intention thata legally binding Framework Agreement will be
negotiated, pubished and in piace by (dote] 2034.
{LL These proposals. and the wider disissions on this subject Between Post Office and the NFSP
are private and confidentiai and are not tobe circulated or shared with anyone {other thon.
the shareholder of Post Office) without the'other party's express written consent.
2. This Memarandutn of Understanding wil cee to have any further effect ifthe NESP merges
‘with a trade union or anyother organisation or dees not ratify and adopt 7 a the relevant
‘Special Conference.
Post Office Limited National Federation of Subpostenasters
Sabjectto contract:
Cwuo00000076
cwuo0000076