Royal Mail’s attacks on union hit a rock at Burslem

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14005

by Yuri Prasad

Royal Mail’s attempts to undermine the CWU postal workers’ union have come unstuck at the Burslem delivery office in Stoke-on-Trent.

Around 100 workers there have been on strike since the end of last year, and plan to remain out until at least the end of January. The CWU union is demanding an independent appeal against the Burslem disciplinaries.

Last year Royal Mail launched an investigation into the office, claiming it had received reports of bullying by members of the CWU union.

A key witness, who provided a statement alleging that CWU activists had coerced fellow workers into not doing overtime shifts, last week said that his original statement was false and was only given under severe pressure.

Withdraw statement

He said that he has been trying to withdraw his statement since November, but investigators have refused to listen.

Despite the fact that almost 80 percent of those interviewed by Royal Mail said that management, not the union, had bullied them, the company used the statements of just two workers as the basis for disciplinary action against 12 others – including all three union reps.

All 12 were then suspended.

Royal Mail is not the only organisation that has victimised union activists in recent months. Health workers in Manchester are fighting to defend Unison union rep Karen Reissmann, who was sacked for speaking out against cuts. In local government Unison is in a battle for the reinstatement of Michael Gavan, sacked for opposing privatisation.

If the Burslem strike wins, it will give a boost to the other campaigns.

Last week around 1,000 postal workers gathered in Burslem to march in support of the strike. They carried 22 CWU banners representing branches from Exeter to Edinburgh.

Many leading reps feel that, on a national level, the CWU is not defending its activists as aggressively as it should.

“The agreement to end last year’s national dispute should have stated in much stronger terms that there will be no victimisations,â€