not on facebook
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED 2017)... HERE


EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

11 Jan 2019, 13:35

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Final.pdf

JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal concerning the claimants’ alleged
infringements of rights conferred by Regulations 5 and 13 of the Agency Workers
Regulations 2010 (“the Regulations”) and Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act
1996 is that:

1. Complaint A: The late payment of the 2017 Christmas bonus (Regulation 5) is
well founded.

2. The Tribunal makes the following recommendation for the purpose of obviating
the effect of the infringement on the claimants:
The first respondent shall pay the claimants’ 2018 Christmas Bonus entitlement by no
later than the date on which the second respondent’s OPG grade employees at the
Leeds Mail Centre are paid their entitlement.

3. We further order Royal Mail Group Limited (being the controlling party) to pay
a financial penalty to the Secretary of State of £100 per claimant in respect of this
infringement.

4. Complaint 1 (the late payment of the collectively agreed 2018 5% pay increase)
is not well founded.

5. Complaint 2: exclusion of the claimants from work time learning sessions on 4
June 2018 and 15 June 2018 as an infringement of Regulation 5 is not well founded.

6. Complaint 3: exclusion of the claimants from applying for internal vacancies on
14 May and 8 June 2018 (Regulation 13) is well founded and the Tribunal shall
determine the remedies in relation to this infringement at a separate hearing.

7. Complaint 4: exclusion of the claimants from the system of issuing overtime in
operation at Leeds Mail Centre between 18 and 24 June 2018 (Regulation 5) is not
well founded.

8. Complaint 5: on 4 June issuing both claimants with a shift that was 12 minutes
longer than a comparable Royal Mail employee (Regulation 5) is well founded. The
Tribunal makes no financial award or recommendation.

9. Complaint 6: on 9 June 2018 deducting work breaks from both claimants’
overall duration of shift working time (Regulation 5) is well founded. The respondents
(the second respondent being in control of the first respondent) shall pay to the
claimants the following sums amounting to two weeks’ pay in respect of this
infringement: Mr Kocur £868.64; Ms Roberts £1008.92.

10. Complaint 7: paying rolled up holiday pay in respect of 2.5 additional days’
holiday pay in respect of a shift worked on 9 June 2018 (Regulation 5) is well founded.
The Tribunal makes no financial award or recommendation.

11. Complaint 8: averaging the claimants’ pay on payslips dated 27 April 2018
(Regulation 5) is not well founded.

12. Complaint 9: on 14 May and 15 June 2018 scheduling shorter break times for
the claimants than a permanent colleague on shift (Regulation 5) is not well founded.

13. Complaint 10: Angard not including adequate particulars of employment in the
claimants’ contracts compliant with Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in
four respects (remuneration; holiday pay/entitlement; hours of work (including rest
breaks); and applicable collective agreements): The Tribunal has found that due to
changes and other relevant matters written particulars provided by the Angard and to
some extent those declared by the Tribunal on 8 January 2018 do not now comply
with Section 1 (to the extent of representing the claimants’ particulars either at the
commencement of these proceedings or today) and a separate Order addresses the
means for their determination.

14. Complaint 11: during 23 to 29 April 2018 allocating to the second claimant four
night shifts when a royal mail employee worked five night shifts (Regulation 5) is not
well founded.

15. Complaint 12: during 4 June to 10 June 2018 to the first claimant 38.5 hours’
night shift work when a royal mail employee worked 39 hours (Regulation 5) is not well
founded.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

11 Jan 2019, 15:56

So, this couple have returned to the Leeds Employment Tribunal and win 7 out of 15 Claims.

The last time they went down this route, they won a large % if their claims and were eventually awarded £’000s in compensation.

You would think that RM:Angard would have learned by now.

Interesting the ETA judge ruled , formally that Angard is totally controlled by RM. We all knew that but their usual defence of “its not us it’s RM” is invalid.

The sooner Angard is closed down and the process is taken back in-house at RM the better, as far as I am concerned.

That would put the RM Agreement with the union in jeopardy in that ‘RM don’t employ staff onCasual Zero-Hours Cobtracts’. As ANGARD are owned and controlled by, that statement is false.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

12 Jan 2019, 15:57

NW11851 wrote:So, this couple have returned to the Leeds Employment Tribunal and win 7 out of 15 Claims.

The last time they went down this route, they won a large % if their claims and were eventually awarded £’000s in compensation.

You would think that RM:Angard would have learned by now.

Interesting the ETA judge ruled , formally that Angard is totally controlled by RM. We all knew that but their usual defence of “its not us it’s RM” is invalid.

The sooner Angard is closed down and the process is taken back in-house at RM the better, as far as I am concerned.

That would put the RM Agreement with the union in jeopardy in that ‘RM don’t employ staff onCasual Zero-Hours Cobtracts’. As ANGARD are owned and controlled by, that statement is false.



EXACTLY, mate. I totally agree with you 100%. This angers bullying needs to be put to bed once and for all. The MCs need more staff and this casualisation of the MCs is something the UNION have let slip. All AWR qualified staff should be transferred to RM as their obviously needed. And I know that some angardees like the odd shift but that can't be at the detriment of the vast majority who just want a fulltime job with good pay and conditions. C'mon is that really too much to ask. I hope RM has to pay out allsorts of cash to the claimants as money is all that they care for these days. :thumbup

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

13 Jan 2019, 19:31

So Angard are meant to pay Christmas Bonus to all AWR qualified workers . I don't know of any of the Agency that have ever been paid a Christmas Bonus , what have Angard done with the bonus for all these years ? .
A £100 fine ? seriously RM must be pissing themselves laughing.
:arrrghhh

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

13 Jan 2019, 20:27

I will contact Angard via their online contact form to see about this xmas bonus.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

15 Jan 2019, 09:58

What’s a ‘Christmas Bonus Entitlement’?

Anyone asked Angard yet?

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

15 Jan 2019, 10:12

Is the reason that Angard do not receive a Christmas Bonus because, technically, each shift is a separate contract? Therefore very few of us work on Christmas Day (which appear to be the qualifying factor) and hence, do not qualify.

Having said that, the plaintiffs managed to to get the Tribunal to instruct RH/Angard that it should be paid.
I would be very interested to see how that panned our.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

15 Jan 2019, 12:49

NW11851 wrote:Is the reason that Angard do not receive a Christmas Bonus because, technically, each shift is a separate contract? Therefore very few of us work on Christmas Day (which appear to be the qualifying factor) and hence, do not qualify.

Having said that, the plaintiffs managed to to get the Tribunal to instruct RH/Angard that it should be paid.
I would be very interested to see how that panned our.


You are incorrect Christmas Bonus or Christmas Allowance is paid to all Rm staff who work outside their scheduled hours at this time of year, you also must do a certain amount of hours at Christmas during the 4 qualifying weeks.
Which is probably why Angard cancel so many shifts at this time so you never qualify .
:thumbup

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

15 Jan 2019, 14:18

nothingatthemoment wrote:You are incorrect Christmas Bonus or Christmas Allowance is paid to all Rm staff who work outside their scheduled hours at this time of year, you also must do a certain amount of hours at Christmas during the 4 qualifying weeks.
Which is probably why Angard cancel so many shifts at this time so you never qualify .


As we are on zero hour contracts any time worked during the four weeks is over and above our usual hours so theoretically we qualify for a pro rata payment.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

15 Jan 2019, 16:03

I’ve submitted an inquiry/claim to Angard.

Let’s see what they say (if anything).

I’ve already got one claim EAT claim/case in the pipeline. I could have dozens of others but I lost the will to Perdue them for everything,

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: 1. Mr D Kocur 2. Ms C Roberts Respondents: 1. Angard Staffing Solutions Limited 2. Royal Mail Group Limited

15 Jan 2019, 17:43

tabact wrote:
nothingatthemoment wrote:You are incorrect Christmas Bonus or Christmas Allowance is paid to all Rm staff who work outside their scheduled hours at this time of year, you also must do a certain amount of hours at Christmas during the 4 qualifying weeks.
Which is probably why Angard cancel so many shifts at this time so you never qualify .


As we are on zero hour contracts any time worked during the four weeks is over and above our usual hours so theoretically we qualify for a pro rata payment.


I would query this with Angard , as they can't claim this is rolled up into the hourly rate , as it is a totally separate payment.
Depending on how many hours you did at Christmas , will determine how much you should have received .
:thumbup

Previous page Next page


Page 1 of 1