(20 April, 2009): As you know, the union took a stand last year to protect a range of job security conditions that existed in EBA6 - and which Australia Post tried to block from being carried over to EBA7.
Clauses dealing with the use of casuals and agency staff, contacting out, franchising were all set to disappear from your next enterprise agreement - with Australia Post using WorkChoices as the excuse to strip out these conditions.
In response to your union's refusal to endorse EBA7 without these conditions, elements of Post management decided to try their luck and force workplace changes without consulting properly or following the existing agreement, EBA6.
No doubt some thought that if the law prevented us from accessing arbitration to challenge the way Post was behaving, then those elements of management could act in whatever way they wanted.
The CEPU took a different view - that we would legally challenge Post every step of the way, to ensure management were made accountable for the way they were behaving.
The result?
The number of disputes that Post was forced to respond to in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission doubled - from 32 disputes in 2006/07 to 66 in 2007/08.
Not surprisingly, the amount of money Post was forced to spend on lawyers to help defend themselves also ballooned: from $187,430 in 2006/07 to $482,053.
How do we know this?
Because Post was forced through the Senate Estimates process to answer questions put on notice by Senator Steve Hutchins, who questioned various elements of Post's performance over the last 12 months.
You can download the formal answers HERE and HERE
What are the lessons here for Post?