Swipe Cards Next?

NW11851 · Post by **NW11851** » 01 Aug 2018, 10:14

I have just written to Angard as follows:

'Good Morning.

As an AWR qualified long-term member of your staff, I am writing to request that I be provided with a swipe card in order for me to readily access my usual work site, Gatwick Mail Centre.

Following the Employment Agency Tribunal (EAT) decision in the following case:
Mr D Kocur and Miss C Roberts v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and Royal Mail Group Ltd: 1801535/2016 and others - Final

and the Remedy Decision in the following: Mr D Kocur and Miss C Roberts v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and Royal Mail Group Ltd: 1801535/2016 and others - Remedy.

it was ruled that an ANgard member of staff should be provided with a swipe card.

The Royal Mail's reluctance to do this, on the grounds that each card cost £8.00 was rejected by the EAT and compendation was paid to Mr Kocur in the sum of £8,000.00, plus interest for the period of time that the Royal Mail declined to implement the original judgement.

As a precedent has been set in case law, I request that I be provided with a swipe card in order for me to readily access my usual work site, <snip> Mail Centre.

However, I AM willing, however reluctantly, to offer to pay the £8.00 cost of such as card.

I look forward to receiving you reply.

Yours faithfully,.....'

Let the fun begin.....

nothingatthemoment · Post by **nothingatthemoment** » 01 Aug 2018, 10:19

NW11851 wrote:I have just written to Angard as follows:

'Good Morning.

As an AWR qualified long-term member of your staff, I am writing to request that I be provided with a swipe card in order for me to readily access my usual work site, Gatwick Mail Centre.

Following the Employment Agency Tribunal (EAT) decision in the following case:
Mr D Kocur and Miss C Roberts v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and Royal Mail Group Ltd: 1801535/2016 and others - Final

and the Remedy Decision in the following: Mr D Kocur and Miss C Roberts v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and Royal Mail Group Ltd: 1801535/2016 and others - Remedy.

it was ruled that an ANgard member of staff should be provided with a swipe card.

The Royal Mail's reluctance to do this, on the grounds that each card cost £8.00 was rejected by the EAT and compendation was paid to Mr Kocur in the sum of £8,000.00, plus interest for the period of time that the Royal Mail declined to implement the original judgement.

As a precedent has been set in case law, I request that I be provided with a swipe card in order for me to readily access my usual work site, <snip> Mail Centre.

However, I AM willing, however reluctantly, to offer to pay the £8.00 cost of such as card.

I look forward to receiving you reply.

Yours faithfully,.....'

Let the fun begin.....

BRILLIANT L.O.L.

NW11851 · Post by **NW11851** » 01 Aug 2018, 10:33

Thank you.

There are a number of traps in my request:

1 It is illegal to charge staff for access to their place of employment.
2 If Angard manage to identify me and issue me with a P60m in retaliation, I too will be joining the others at the EAT.

There are other (implied) traps in there as well, depending upon their response.

And yes, it has been copied to my CWU Regional Rep.

The simple, lawful and honest response would be for the Company to issue swipe cards to all AWR Staff.
But....the companies have invariably taken the most painful road in their dealings with their staff.

Let us see what transpires........

Post by **Lockardian** » 01 Aug 2018, 15:33

I’m confused by your comment “If Angard manage to identify me..”

Did you sign the email/give your payroll details?

NW11851 · Post by **NW11851** » 01 Aug 2018, 16:07

Ah, I see the confusion.

Obviously I identified myself in my request to Angard, on their website.

I referred to my post in this forum.

Some ANGARD staff are believed to be members of this forum and that is why I was rather more cagey.

Sorry if I confused anyone.

nothingatthemoment · Post by **nothingatthemoment** » 06 Aug 2018, 23:54

NW11851 wrote:Ah, I see the confusion.

Obviously I identified myself in my request to Angard, on their website.

I referred to my post in this forum.

Some ANGARD staff are believed to be members of this forum and that is why I was rather more cagey.

Sorry if I confused anyone.

Don't forget to ask for access to Gym membership as well , L.O.L.

NW11851 · Post by **NW11851** » 07 Aug 2018, 11:46

LOL

Unlike the plaintiff in the EAT case, I have absolutely no use for the gym!

mrgund · Post by **mrgund** » 19 Aug 2018, 23:07

I don't get it. Why did they bring a case for a swipe card??

NW11851 · Post by **NW11851** » 20 Aug 2018, 13:57

Agency Workers Regulation = equality of conditions with RM staff.

Indignity if having to wait RM staff to let them in. After 12 weeks, plus security checks, should be automatic.

The original plaintiffs had many more issues to raise.