Re:Repick. Drivers Choosing Walkers?.

[bakerstreetirregular]

Hi. My D.O. is going through the revision process and we have been told that in the repick of duties it will be in the following:
First Pick:F/T Holding Driving License.(seniority still applying).
Second Pick: P/T Holding Driving License.(seniority still applying).
The "walkers" are then chosen by the drivers(I'm guessing irrespective of seniority)on there own personal peference. I don't much about the various agreements in place nationally, but does the CWU allow this?.

[keithposty]

who told you this, the dom
all duties are on seniority, regardless of driving duties or not

the only exception are specialist duties

[bakerstreetirregular]

Yeah. We don't have an elected union rep at the moment just a "spokesman" (who is a driver, F/T so isn't going to contest it!). Does the need for sufficent drivers to cover park and loop come under the grounds operational needs/ special skills etc?.

[clashcityrocker]

The walkers are chosen by the drivers?

Reminds me a bit of football in the playground.
Is the fat kid with glasses going to be picked last?

How exactly is the last picked person going to feel.
Bullying and harassment forms should be made freely available.

[fishtank]

What kind of office would go along with this?
Get it stopped.
If you have to go straight to your area rep or above so be it.
What a pile of nonsense.

[Pat Ostman]

Utter tripe.

Area Rep ASAP if your concerns are not met.

[Lounge Lizard]

"The 'walkers' are chosen by the drivers". That happened a lot in a certain district of the next town until the police took action there.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

full time drivers then part time drivers get pick, thats is actually against the law, you are not allowed to discrimante against pt staff soley because they are pt

[fishtank]

full time drivers then part time drivers get pick, thats is actually against the law, you are not allowed to discrimante against pt staff soley because they are pt

It would be almost impossible to prove anything on those grounds since all walks are supposed to be equal which would make it difficult to show detrimental treatment however it's completely out of step with section 16 of the Way Forward which still holds the field.
As Clash pointed out it is much more like a case of bullying since those "picked" last will be made to feel like they aren't really wanted.
To me it smells like a carve up between management and their favourites,a pox on anybody willingly taking part in it, preferably the wire brush and dettol kind of pox.
If i was first pick i would refuse to pick anything,i would like to think second pick would as well etc,etc.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

full time drivers then part time drivers get pick, thats is actually against the law, you are not allowed to discrimante against pt staff soley because they are pt

It would be almost impossible to prove anything on those grounds since all walks are supposed to be equal which would make it difficult to show detrimental treatment however it's completely out of step with section 16 of the Way Forward which still holds the field.
As Clash pointed out it is much more like a case of bullying since those "picked" last will be made to feel like they aren't really wanted.
To me it smells like a carve up between management and their favourites,a pox on anybody willingly taking part in it, preferably the wire brush and dettol kind of pox.
If i was first pick i would refuse to pick anything,i would like to think second pick would as well etc,etc.

erm well apart from the fact the that the op stated:

First Pick:F/T Holding Driving License.(seniority still applying).
Second Pick: P/T Holding Driving License.(seniority still applying).

the full timers get first choice and the part timers get second choice of round, pretty clear that full timers are getting preference there, there is no reason to split full time and part time choices, should only be done on seniority and nothing to do woth hours worked

[fishtank]

erm well apart from the fact the that the op stated:

First Pick:F/T Holding Driving License.(seniority still applying).
Second Pick: P/T Holding Driving License.(seniority still applying).

the full timers get first choice and the part timers get second choice of round, pretty clear that full timers are getting preference there,

You misunderstand me and the law.
It's not enough to be treated differently.
You have to show real detriment...not getting the duty you want is not detrimental to your terms and conditions if all duties are supposedly equal and you're not being forced to work over your time.
It would have to be based on something like loss of potential earnings.
Employment Tribunals are not interested in whether you think his is a "better" duty than yours are they?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

erm well apart from the fact the that the op stated:

First Pick:F/T Holding Driving License.(seniority still applying).
Second Pick: P/T Holding Driving License.(seniority still applying).

the full timers get first choice and the part timers get second choice of round, pretty clear that full timers are getting preference there,

You misunderstand me and the law.
It's not enough to be treated differently.
You have to show real detriment...not getting the duty you want is not detrimental to your terms and conditions if all duties are supposedly equal and you're not being forced to work over your time.
It would have to be based on something like loss of potential earnings.
Employment Tribunals are not interested in whether you think his is a "better" duty than yours are they?

no i am not misunderstanding the law, selection in this manner would consitute indirect discrimination, not direct discrimination as you point out it doesnt, indirect discrimination is still unlawful, ie beacuse of the selection process full timers could select all the routes closer to the DO and thus have better access to rest facilities and therefore part timers would have less easy access soley because they have second choice because they are part time and not full time, i believe that would fit the definition of indirect discrimination

[fishtank]

no i am not misunderstanding the law, selection in this manner would consitute indirect discrimination, not direct discrimination as you point out it doesnt, indirect discrimination is still unlawful, ie beacuse of the selection process full timers could select all the routes closer to the DO and thus have better access to rest facilities and therefore part timers would have less easy access soley because they have second choice because they are part time and not full time, i believe that would fit the definition of indirect discrimination

I don't even think it's close but we'll agree to differ.
The main point is this selection process is un-agreed and outside national guidelines so should binned and flagged up to Branch and Division.
I think we can agree on that.