Royal Mail injunction plans

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 11 Oct 2017, 17:26

We don't really know what the legal outcome might be, it's possible RM may try to have the ballot itself deemed unlawful if they win their injunction, If their argument holds water that mediation has to take place before industrial action then they could argue that the union had no lawful right to ballot its members in the first place.

In the words of Run -DMC...It's tricky.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 11 Oct 2017, 17:26

Oh dear

Brace yourselves for December boys and girls.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 11 Oct 2017, 17:32

they are changing their tune now though fish,...they are now saying external mediation has not been ''fully exhausted'', whereas before they were claiming it hadn't taken place. they are contradicting themselves goodstyle. I hope the judge sees them for what they really are. liars.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 11 Oct 2017, 17:42

Just been reading a document produced by the(civil liberties) organisation Liberty, regarding the Trade Union Act. I think the section on the length of the ballot mandate bears quoting here :-
''Employers will know that industrial
action is significantly time limited and unions will not have limitless resources to spend on
ballot. Employers may purposefully protract negotiations as each time a ballot is held there is
more scope for an employer to seek an injunction and momentum developed in the time
leading up to the ballot and the four months after will be reduced or completely lost while the
union organises and awaits the results of the next ballot. Employers will know that if they are
willing to give it long enough they will be able to outlast the union and employee’s staying
power. Employees will be forced either to sacrifice salary and risk job loss in the knowledge
that their employer can play a waiting game or to put up with the situation and do nothing.
Neither of these approaches will lead to a safe and secure working environment.''

I ask again, in light of the potential fines/sequestration of funds that the union may be faced with for acting in the interests of their members and at their behest (rather than asking permissions from High Court judges), how is our money secured ??
Dingo ? anyone ?
If it isn't secured (which it isn't), we are one step up from slaves.

wannabeek · Post by **wannabeek** » 11 Oct 2017, 17:47

He said: "The potential disruption and inconvenience to the general public and damage likely to be caused by the industrial action significantly outweighs the suggested harm to the union."

Oh dear. If this is true then I fear this could be long a winter of discontent, leading to possibly the downfall of RM also.

Never mind. At least the high management echelons will soon have other high paid jobs to go to so not everyone in the company will be stuffed!

Post by **tinkerdil** » 11 Oct 2017, 18:03

If disruption and inconvenience is relevant to a judge's decision then no strike will ever be deemed legal.

LaggyBand · Post by **LaggyBand** » 11 Oct 2017, 18:08

tinkerdil wrote:If disruption and inconvenience is relevant to a judge's decision then no strike will ever be deemed legal.

It's "on balance"

LaggyBand · Post by **LaggyBand** » 11 Oct 2017, 18:16

That paragraph really does encapsulate the expected situation going forward for me!

Post by **tinkerdil** » 11 Oct 2017, 19:04

LaggyBand wrote:
tinkerdil wrote:If disruption and inconvenience is relevant to a judge's decision then no strike will ever be deemed legal.
It's "on balance"

In this instance he is there to judge procedure not the consequence of strike action.

wannabeek · Post by **wannabeek** » 11 Oct 2017, 19:13

Oh phew. There was me worried he might be concerned about either his recently-purchased RM stockholding at rock-bottom price or maybe that his Beano arrives next Saturday.

I'm sure he must be totally legit, being a judge and all...

LaggyBand · Post by **LaggyBand** » 11 Oct 2017, 19:29

tinkerdil wrote:
LaggyBand wrote:
tinkerdil wrote:If disruption and inconvenience is relevant to a judge's decision then no strike will ever be deemed legal.
It's "on balance"
In this instance he is there to judge procedure not the consequence of strike action.

Yes. I was talking about the instance with the rail folk.

LaggyBand · Post by **LaggyBand** » 11 Oct 2017, 19:34

Anyone know what firms RM and CWU are using tomorrow?

Cedar_Room · Post by **Cedar_Room** » 11 Oct 2017, 19:50

Dorset Plodder wrote:
LaggyBand wrote:
Ha yes it's true the nature of the work cultivates an "every man for himself" attitude for sure. Get done - get home. I just meant that a national call to work to rule / work to time will undoubtedly be called a strike, so not really an option if the injunction is granted.

If however strikes are permitted it might be a good method towards the end of any prolonged period (36 days of striking in Canada?!) when wallets are looking thin.
We've had a few "Characters" saying they voted No and they're going to be coming in if there's a strike. One told the Rep he doesn't agree with striking so he'll be working. I must admit to being a bit pissed off at their attitude, but that's what Democracy is about!

To get to your point, one of them is the most selfish bloke in the office, always pleases himself what he does. A true Runner that ALWAYS finishes early (in fact he takes it as a personal insult if someone gets back to the office before him) When I pointed out to him that one idea RM wants is for "Walk Ownership", working in TEAMS, and having to cover for Team Members on Leave (or Sick) with no additional Overtime...... well his face was a picture. Of course he hadn't been in the Union Briefing talking about these points because......... he had to get out on delivery and couldn't afford to waste the time! We really are working with idiots.

Bloody hell. That fella sounds like a person I know from ours who will also be working next Fri & Sat. The parallels are truely frightening

LouBarlow · Post by **LouBarlow** » 11 Oct 2017, 19:57

daveyeff wrote:
LouBarlow wrote:
LaggyBand wrote:
peterloo wrote:So wouldn't this be a bit of a double edged sword for RM if the agreement is legally enforceable, if the injunction is upheld. Then the CWU can smack them around the courts on loads of stuff like resourcing, pensions, part time contracted hours and it wouldn't cost CWU the legal fees. I've been told we haven't taken them to court previously because it was considered the nuclear option and If we were to lose, the whole agreement goes down the swanny!
I agree with you. An injunction should not necessarily be seen as a defeat for the union. They then get to hear deals, and if they are no good, they know they have the workforce on board to strike. One even more pissed off than before. And like you said, RM will have paved the way for getting all "legal-ey".
They will have to ballot again for one. It was a big deal for this vote to pass the 50% threshold for the new union strike rules, so there is still uncertainty whether they can achieve such a response in the future, especially if people become disillusioned, should the induction happen tomorrow.
they don't have to ballot again, if RM wins the injunction, it just delays the strikes for 5 weeks or so. the ballot is live now for 6 months, whether they win or not.

My mistake then. I thought I read strike action had to be taken within 4 weeks of a ballot result being announced. There are so many numbers swirling around in my head. That is my excuse and I'm sticking to it

Post by **tinkerdil** » 11 Oct 2017, 20:02

LaggyBand wrote:
tinkerdil wrote:
LaggyBand wrote:
tinkerdil wrote:If disruption and inconvenience is relevant to a judge's decision then no strike will ever be deemed legal.
It's "on balance"
In this instance he is there to judge procedure not the consequence of strike action.
Yes. I was talking about the instance with the rail folk.

I understand Laggyband. 'High court judge is' thread merged with this one.

ROYALMAILCHAT