Itd be hard for them to say you arent capable to do the job if you dont drive when you have been doing the job for years whilst not driving.
They would need to get rid of van sharing which means doubling the number of vans, doubling the size of area to keep the vans and double the usage of fuel
If I lose my job due to not having a license that I never needed when I took the job I will be taking them all the way at tribunal.
If it’s such a required skill ( even though can do the job van sharing without the need to ) will they be offering to fund lessons/training?
Would they also need to prove there is no position within the entire business that someone who doesn’t drive could do instead?
Imagine thousands of non drivers taking them to a tribunal - bad publicity and when we win paying out millions in compensation!!!!!
Bring it on!!!!!!!
If every duty was a driving duty, I suppose they could get rid of you as a role for you doesn't exist anymore. But what if they still had trolley duties in your office, can they force someone out and then replace them with a new lower paid worker to do a walking, non-driving duty? Or is that discrimination?
If every duty was a driving duty, I suppose they could get rid of you as a role for you doesn't exist anymore. But what if they still had trolley duties in your office, can they force someone out and then replace them with a new lower paid worker to do a walking, non-driving duty? Or is that discrimination?
The part at the bottom is from the uk laws on discrimination. I personally think royal mail would lose in a tribunal.
indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage
They simply wouldnt get away with it whilst van sharing is still in place - in fact even if both partners can drive in a van share, only one can be designated as the driver. The passenger isnt actually allowed to drive the van if not assigned as the driver. They cant demonstrate that driving is necessary for every employee.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
They simply wouldnt get away with it whilst van sharing is still in place - in fact even if both partners can drive in a van share, only one can be designated as the driver. The passenger isnt actually allowed to drive the van if not assigned as the driver. They cant demonstrate that driving is necessary for every employee.
Hope the union are clued up on this and fight this in court if the worst comes to the worst
If every duty was a driving duty, I suppose they could get rid of you as a role for you doesn't exist anymore. But what if they still had trolley duties in your office, can they force someone out and then replace them with a new lower paid worker to do a walking, non-driving duty? Or is that discrimination?
The part at the bottom is from the uk laws on discrimination. I personally think royal mail would lose in a tribunal.
indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage
Am highly sceptical about what has been released by the CWU with terminating contracts of employment with non drivers in deliveries. As has been stated previously, they will have to make the job role redundant?
Since deliveries are van shares that is an impossibility, unless the intention is to go back to singleton deliveries and have separate parcel delivery duties. Correct me if wrong but believe around 2015 they said any new entrants would need a driving licence, but anybody before that date, this caveat would not apply.
Protected characteristics is a bit of a red herring as that is a statutory obligation. Contracts of employment cannot take precedence over statute.
Reading the OP in processing looks like anyone who is mech trained is effectively 100% safe
I rather doubt that: my interpretation of "Anyone who is not automation trained and this will ALSO be based on EXPERIENCE." tends to be that, if you have less mech experience than another, you will be more likely to face compulsory redundancy than that person will.
Of course, I could be wrong — and the statement is a little unclear to me — but I think it might well mean that.
One thing with Royal Mail is that they have an excellent HR department.
Anything they put out as statements of policy will be equality checked with their press dept as an official press release.
This statement from the CWU on social media relies on peoples own perception with limited data and no official communication it even came from Royal Mail.
Until a source material is provided direct from Royal Mail will treat it as no more than Chinese Whispers.
One thing with Royal Mail is that they have an excellent HR department.
Anything they put out as statements of policy will be equality checked with their press dept as an official press release.
This statement from the CWU on social media relies on peoples own perception with limited data and no official communication it even came from Royal Mail.
Until a source material is provided direct from Royal Mail will treat it as no more than Chinese Whispers.
The letter was shown in this afternoons CWU live video with Dave and Andy
Albeit was a letter asking the CWU to meet RM next week to consult with them regarding what the criteria should be and those were the suggestions of what the criteria could be
They of course said they would not be taking part in any discussions of compulsory redundancies
Martin really should have mentioned that in the opening post to be fair as he started this thread after the live video had already been on
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
One thing with Royal Mail is that they have an excellent HR department.
Anything they put out as statements of policy will be equality checked with their press dept as an official press release.
This statement from the CWU on social media relies on peoples own perception with limited data and no official communication it even came from Royal Mail.
Until a source material is provided direct from Royal Mail will treat it as no more than Chinese Whispers.
Last edited by Paulus_Maximus on 29 Nov 2022, 22:52, edited 2 times in total.
