ANNOUNCEMENT : ROYAL MAIL EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED 2017)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : CHRISTMAS & NEW YEAR ARRANGEMENTS 2017/18 INCLUDING PAY ARRANGEMENTS... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : SEVERE WEATHER THREADS : UPDATED 2017... HERE


Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 16:50

In the recent LTB I received it states that;

"In defending the case in court, while we firmly believe Royal Mail to be abusing the terms of our agreement, it has become clear that the legal test for obtaining an injunction turns upon which party is likely to suffer the greatest financial damage in the event that it is either granted or denied."

So my question is, in deciding which party would suffer the greatest financial damage, did the courts take into account how much leverage will be lost by the CWU by Royal Mail delaying the start of strike action past the Black Friday period and possibly past Christmas also. Did they take into account how much every employee of Royal Mail combined stand to lose in pay alone as no doubt after Christmas we'll have to strike for longer periods to have any effect. Also what about the difference from what we could have achieved in our pensions by hitting Royal Mail hard asap and what we will not be able to achieve as they can now simply wait it out?


Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 16:58

We should all walk out on Friday as planned, be very happy if the call came.

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 16:59

absolutely f@@@ awful whats going on cwu thought you had been talkig about this with royal mail for past 18 months and they didn't budge now there going to get away with xmas were was hitting them hard all your crap talkin on the news and social media didn't pay of ay joke :silenced :silenced :silenced :thumbdown :thumbdown :thumbdown :thumbdown :thumbdown :thumbdown :thumbdown

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 17:29

Have to agree , union don't come out of this well , they signed up to this previous agreement so surely they should have know the implications of it .

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 18:11

Hardly a surprise was it?

The "establishment" finds in favour of the greedy corporate moguls.

It's made me more determined to put up a fight.

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 18:15

chickenwittle wrote:Have to agree , union don't come out of this well , they signed up to this previous agreement so surely they should have know the implications of it .

Exactly and I liked it when they said what a strong union we are.
Look what some of the other unions have got there members over the years

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 18:18

Nikellie wrote:Hardly a surprise was it?

The "establishment" finds in favour of the greedy corporate moguls.

It's made me more determined to put up a fight.


Exactly - Royal Mail Group don't come out of this looking too good for me.

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 18:24

i thought that the reason for the injunction was on the grounds of its ''legality'', and that we were supposedly breaking that legality. not about who was going to be more financially scuppered by the strike. who would be affected the most.?? obviously it was going to be them,....that's why we were taking strike action ffs!! I am totally confused by this statement by the judge. it wasn't about them being more f****d than us!!

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 18:47

I don't understand why the union announced a strike next week knowning that the company will go to the court.
Why they didn't start earlier the mediation negotiation process so on Christmas time we will have the legal right to strike?
And why they signed such an agreement five years ago about our right to strike?

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 18:48

The CWU should of looked into the legality of it long ago,been five years in the making this we've all had 5 years knowing strikes were on the way, but the only good thing is how strong the workforce come together on this , if strikes start after Xmas it's all over

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 18:58

daveyeff wrote:i thought that the reason for the injunction was on the grounds of its ''legality'', and that we were supposedly breaking that legality. not about who was going to be more financially scuppered by the strike. who would be affected the most.?? obviously it was going to be them,....that's why we were taking strike action ffs!! I am totally confused by this statement by the judge. it wasn't about them being more f****d than us!!


The judges statement was that he ruled because the strike was unlawful until external mediation had been used. The above quote is just Dave Wards attempt to save face because he knows he's made an enormous balls up.

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 19:03

morgaith80 wrote: The above quote is just Dave Wards attempt to save face because he knows he's made an enormous balls up.


Its a bit too easy a conclusion to reach, that one, TBH.

If RMG hadn't used this as grounds to stall the strike, it would have been something else.

Stalling the strike is a fruitful exercise in light of the Trade Union Act.

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 19:04

The Postman wrote:In the recent LTB I received it states that;

"In defending the case in court, while we firmly believe Royal Mail to be abusing the terms of our agreement, it has become clear that the legal test for obtaining an injunction turns upon which party is likely to suffer the greatest financial damage in the event that it is either granted or denied."

So my question is, in deciding which party would suffer the greatest financial damage, did the courts take into account how much leverage will be lost by the CWU by Royal Mail delaying the start of strike action past the Black Friday period and possibly past Christmas also. Did they take into account how much every employee of Royal Mail combined stand to lose in pay alone as no doubt after Christmas we'll have to strike for longer periods to have any effect. Also what about the difference from what we could have achieved in our pensions by hitting Royal Mail hard asap and what we will not be able to achieve as they can now simply wait it out?

We still can hit them hard by just DOING THE JOB PROPERLY the only difference is a phrase and an overtime ban but since a lot are part time who can blame them for working OT.

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 19:33

[/quote]
We still can hit them hard by just DOING THE JOB PROPERLY the only difference is a phrase and an overtime ban but since a lot are part time who can blame them for working OT.[/quote]

I blame them.

I work PT. I have no chance of having my hour increased because other PT'mers will come in early, on their days off, work overtime.. and for what ? the chance of doing it all again for lesser terms than a Ft workmate. No Holiday contribution, no pension contribution. Many work more hours than a FT'mer yet when it comes to bonuses...Pro rata.

Why let managemet exploit you by suppressing your hours, keeping you low paid? When they NEED you to work those additional hours to get their job done. If we all declined their OT requests, you can bet we would get more perminant hours on our contracts.

Injunction Decision

12 Oct 2017, 20:27

enskied wrote:

We still can hit them hard by just DOING THE JOB PROPERLY the only difference is a phrase and an overtime ban but since a lot are part time who can blame them for working OT.[/quote]

I blame them.

I work PT. I have no chance of having my hour increased because other PT'mers will come in early, on their days off, work overtime.. and for what ? the chance of doing it all again for lesser terms than a Ft workmate. No Holiday contribution, no pension contribution. Many work more hours than a FT'mer yet when it comes to bonuses...Pro rata.

Why let managemet exploit you by suppressing your hours, keeping you low paid? When they NEED you to work those additional hours to get their job done. If we all declined their OT requests, you can bet we would get more perminant hours on our contracts.[/quote]
Totally agree and I thought it was just our office where this happened, we have guys on 20 hours a week coming in 30 mins early and working 5 hours a day without claiming and the same as guys on 30 hours working 6-7 hours no break and don't claim! Yet we have quote the best terms and conditions! Management our taking piss not paying ot and making bonuses for saving money on budget. I've told people this and they are basically mugs yet they seem scared too claim or just not bothered about the money, why don't people come in on time take your breaks and do job properly with trolleys, try neighbour's and either cut off or claim do d2ds during your. Hours it's really not that difficult and if Dom complains tell them to test you on delivery which they won't as don't have time.Things are going to get a lot worse and unless people stop changing around and coming in early they will keep giving us more an more these people not claiming and running are complete idiots and will never get full time hours

Previous page Next page


Page 1 of 1