Pre strike briefing -cwu

[qwerty2]

[Celtic warrior]

They are showing the conditions that the Royal Fail board want to use for compulsory redundancy.....

* Conduct
* Attendance
* Capability / Skills relevant to role (including if you have a driving licence)
* Any other Appropriate criteria ( e.g. Customer complaints )

Basically if you can't drive, have a spurious complaint by any customer and to be honest if your face doesn't fit with the boss.

[Acca Dacca]

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

[zz666]

When I joined you didn't need a driving licence, so a bit unfair to ask for one now.

[qwerty2]

Is it illegal to get rid off people because they don’t drive?

[postieblueshirt]

Is it illegal to get rid off people because they don’t drive?

it should be illegal to keep people on just because they can drive

[enskied]

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

It would fall perhaps under the age discrimination laws also, most non driver's were employed years ago and a knocking on a bit.

[scoobydo79]

That’s ridiculous. You may not have a driving license ( or have one for that matter) but choose to sign for an HCT duty every time

[scoobydo79]

That’s ridiculous. You may not have a driving license ( or have one for that matter) but choose to sign for an HCT duty every time

..or passenger on shared van for that matter

[pieoftheday]

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

Re your last comment, we have around 70 paired jobs so 70 Van's,for delivery, more for some large parcels and collections in the afternoon, I cant see them getting another 70 Van's unless of course we'll have to buy our own van? I'm a none driver btw

[qwerty2]

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

Re your last comment, we have around 70 paired jobs so 70 Van's,for delivery, more for some large parcels and collections in the afternoon, I cant see them getting another 70 Van's unless of course we'll have to buy our own van? I'm a none driver btw

Surely they can’t get rid of thousands of non drivers
1 they don’t have enough people to cover everything
2 it’s probably illegal - just because you don’t drive not a good reason = employment laws??
3 age discrimination???

[jbo5066]

Is it illegal to get rid off people because they don’t drive?

Not sure but it will potentially open a huge Pandora's box were someone to challenge that!

[jbo5066]

If the VR preference exercise was oversubscribed why do they need compulsory redundancies?

[postieblueshirt]

getting rid of non drivers makes me think why?? oh i forgot WE ARE A PARCEL COMPANY NOW....

[jbo5066]

getting rid of non drivers makes me think why?? oh i forgot WE ARE A PARCEL COMPANY NOW....

Only in Thompson's head! The letters say otherwise...