LEGAL CHALLENGE

[ReturnToSenderrr]

Can the CWU not play Royal Mail at their own game and utilise their lawyers, (effective or ineffective as they are) to challenge the legality of some/all/any of what is happening?
I'm thinking about redundancies and hiring at the same time, ripping up agreements etc.
Also according to the Gov.Uk you can't hire agency staff to provide temporary work cover during a strike.

[Murdoch]

Can the CWU not play Royal Mail at their own game and utilise their lawyers, (effective or ineffective as they are) to challenge the legality of some/all/any of what is happening?
I'm thinking about redundancies and hiring at the same time, ripping up agreements etc.
Also according to the Gov.Uk you can't hire agency staff to provide temporary work cover during a strike.

Honestly, the big threat is that if this goes the distance and we don't secure a deal. I think Royal Mail will go down the fire & rehire route. They really are systematically covering all the points from the Government's guidelines on what should be attempted before using Fire & Rehire as a last resort.

So I'm preparing for a tribunal, to take legal action in case they go down that route. The CWU should be thinking about that too, so Royal Mail cannot use that as an option. Thousands of tribunal cases, and potentially large payouts for people unwilling to sign new contracts.

To your last point, I think the Tories recently changed the law so that companies can use agency to cover strikes. We voted 'em in remember.

[Surreypostie]

It is now legal to use agency workers to replace people on strike. Good old Tories.

[ReturnToSenderrr]

I checked, both correct. They need to update the official Government website.

[mattick]

Royal Mail war chest must dwarf the CWU war chest.

[andy8241]

I have always thought it was against employment law to pay different rates for doing exactly the same job. Surely blatant discrimination against new starters.

[Marshamp11]

Can the CWU not play Royal Mail at their own game and utilise their lawyers, (effective or ineffective as they are) to challenge the legality of some/all/any of what is happening?
I'm thinking about redundancies and hiring at the same time, ripping up agreements etc.
Also according to the Gov.Uk you can't hire agency staff to provide temporary work cover during a strike.

Honestly, the big threat is that if this goes the distance and we don't secure a deal. I think Royal Mail will go down the fire & rehire route. They really are systematically covering all the points from the Government's guidelines on what should be attempted before using Fire & Rehire as a last resort.

So I'm preparing for a tribunal, to take legal action in case they go down that route. The CWU should be thinking about that too, so Royal Mail cannot use that as an option. Thousands of tribunal cases, and potentially large payouts for people unwilling to sign new contracts.

To your last point, I think the Tories recently changed the law so that companies can use agency to cover strikes. We voted 'em in remember.

Tribunal route will be my favoured option too. 30+ year man. See you in court Thompson.

[pieoftheday]

I have always thought it was against employment law to pay different rates for doing exactly the same job. Surely blatant discrimination against new starters.

Really good point, men and women all delivering letters and parcels but some at a different rate? Surely some lawyers would be all over it? Mind you RM seem to have the best lawyers so they'll have ticked all the boxes

[postieblueshirt]

I have always thought it was against employment law to pay different rates for doing exactly the same job. Surely blatant discrimination against new starters.

Really good point, men and women all delivering letters and parcels but some at a different rate? Surely some lawyers would be all over it? Mind you RM seem to have the best lawyers so they'll have ticked all the boxes

the owner driver side of things is also a legal minefield if they are doing our jobs.it could be illegal i read it earlier.

[postslippete]

I have always thought it was against employment law to pay different rates for doing exactly the same job. Surely blatant discrimination against new starters.

Did some digging....


By way of the Equality Act, both men and women in the UK must generally receive equal pay for doing equal work. This law stands to protect people from discrimination by reason of their sex and equal pay provisions apply to all contractual terms.

However, it is not necessarily illegal for 2 employees doing the same job to earn different pay, providing that the employer can justify any difference in pay or other contractual benefits on the basis of a reason, or reasons, wholly unrelated to the gender of the jobholders.

I would assume that one of Royal Mail's reason/s are that we are 40% overpaid compared to the overall delivery market and that by recruiting posties on 10% more than the average that they see that their pay offer is justified in current market conditions?? And I always thought we did a lot more than lob parcels over the back gate!!

The company could find itself in a lot of difficulties if some of those recruits that were paid on less money later decided to take Royal Mail to an employment tribunal. But I think it is much more likely given the number of posties that are currently on sick leave that they will probably quit. How would you feel if you were getting £50 less a week than your van share partner for working the same number of hours?

[nikrad]

I didn’t vote the f@ckers in!

[andy8241]

I have always thought it was against employment law to pay different rates for doing exactly the same job. Surely blatant discrimination against new starters.

Did some digging....


By way of the Equality Act, both men and women in the UK must generally receive equal pay for doing equal work. This law stands to protect people from discrimination by reason of their sex and equal pay provisions apply to all contractual terms.

However, it is not necessarily illegal for 2 employees doing the same job to earn different pay, providing that the employer can justify any difference in pay or other contractual benefits on the basis of a reason, or reasons, wholly unrelated to the gender of the jobholders.

I would assume that one of Royal Mail's reason/s are that we are 40% overpaid compared to the overall delivery market and that by recruiting posties on 10% more than the average that they see that their pay offer is justified in current market conditions?? And I always thought we did a lot more than lob parcels over the back gate!!

The company could find itself in a lot of difficulties if some of those recruits that were paid on less money later decided to take Royal Mail to an employment tribunal. But I think it is much more likely given the number of posties that are currently on sick leave that they will probably quit. How would you feel if you were getting £50 less a week than your van share partner for working the same number of hours?

I wouldn't be very happy about it, but probably wouldn't want to fall out of favour with the management, at least until my two year probation was up, by which time a large part of the original workforce would have been driven out by then anyway. Theres going to be a lot of resentment from the newcomers, just whats needed to lift the moral of the worforce!

[Murdoch]

I didn’t vote the f@ckers in!

Yeah, me neither, but a lot of people did, against their own interests.

Turkeys... as the saying goes.

[freespeech]

I have always thought it was against employment law to pay different rates for doing exactly the same job. Surely blatant discrimination against new starters.

Nope……if you think of minimum wage they even legally discriminate on the grounds of age. Lots of companies negotiate different rates for different people….it’s just that we have collective bargaining.

[RTP]

Just been reading - ACAS age discrimination-

For us older posties its well worth typing that into google and having a read, in particular the bits concerning flexible hours and performance standards.

Regarding flexible hours if a grandparent needs to pick a grandchild up from school they have just as much right to request flexible hours as a parent. Also regarding performance standards it says options can/should include coaching and then goes on to say "making an agreed change to their role".

Can see a good few upcoming tribunals coming if only parents are allowed to start and finish earlier and gold standard walking speeds are introduced.