Can you be dismissed after 12 weeks of strike action?

[TopperGas]

What about giving everyone who strikes on the 24th a two year serious?
Makes it easy for RM to pick us off one by one at a later date.
How realistic a prospect would this be?

The idea of being able to sue the union after the event and potentially bankrupt it must seem quite appealing to RM.
To not say anything beforehand, allow people to strike on the 24th then sue at a later date would achieve exactly what RM are after, a broken CWU.

I'm glad this is being spoken about here as no one at work even seems aware of it.

Probably people saying this could never happen would have said last week that the company would never refuse to pay sick pay as they'd face grievance claims etc!!

I wouldn't be surprised if the next step was for RM to say talks have broken down so it's now a case of take their offer or quit, as they have no intention of increasing the offer.

[sindba]

What about giving everyone who strikes on the 24th a two year serious?
Makes it easy for RM to pick us off one by one at a later date.
How realistic a prospect would this be?

The idea of being able to sue the union after the event and potentially bankrupt it must seem quite appealing to RM.
To not say anything beforehand, allow people to strike on the 24th then sue at a later date would achieve exactly what RM are after, a broken CWU.

I'm glad this is being spoken about here as no one at work even seems aware of it.

Stop scaremongering, Mr 8 posts.

To avoid losing a tribunal they would have to dismiss everyone on the same terms. "Picking people off after a 2 year serious'" would make it discriminatory, give us all an unfair dismissal payout, and destroy the company.

As for "suing the Union". For what? Troublemaking? Being nasty to Simon?

Jog on. See you on the line.

[redlen]

It is obvious all the posturing and flag waving is not gong to make one iota of difference with Simon Thompson.

If people continue to strike after the legal protections end on the 23 they are in breach of contract and subject to the disciplinary process.

The CWU will face an injunction through the courts as well at considerable costs in continuing the strikes without legal protections in place.

[Eduardo]

Probably people saying this could never happen would have said last week that the company would never refuse to pay sick pay as they'd face grievance claims etc!!

Is a thread you can recommend on this subject, the subject of refusal to pay sick pay?

Many Thanks.

[sindba]

Oh god Tommo's strike breaking goblins are all out.

Having another go, droning on. Haven't you all had enough?

Go away, we're not listening any more.

[Eduardo]

Oh god Tommo's strike breaking goblins are all out.

Having another go, droning on. Haven't you all had enough?

Go away, we're not listening any more.

I'm not a strike breaker.
I've been out on all of them.
It's just this is the only place I know where I can ask the "difficult" questions and get real answers from informed people.
I work in a large mail centre and I intend to see this dispute right through to the bitter end.
Oh and the people I work with all seem to know fck all about what's really going on in this dispute.

[Halfhappy]

It is obvious all the posturing and flag waving is not gong to make one iota of difference with Simon Thompson.

If people continue to strike after the legal protections end on the 23 they are in breach of contract and subject to the disciplinary process.

The CWU will face an injunction through the courts as well at considerable costs in continuing the strikes without legal protections in place.

What happened to last comment? Seems ur willy waving again. I also like how you're adding in the CWU facing an injunction through the courts now it been mentioned by someone else. How didn't your 5yrs of law not pick that up earlier?

Just for the record I think the CWU would do well to communicate where they stand and what their reasoning is, just to stop all this panic, and scaremongering.

I understand it may not be possible for the to do this for a number of reasons, from waiting for legal advice to not showing their hand.

Personally I find it unlikely he'll dismiss 115,000 employees. It would be an absolute legal minefield proving he's made a valid effort to resolve this. Not to mention the place would grind to halt, literally overnight, for god knows how long.

Honestly tho, parroting how you interpret the same paragraph from a website, doesn't make you an employment law whizz.

[sindba]

Oh god Tommo's strike breaking goblins are all out.

Having another go, droning on. Haven't you all had enough?

Go away, we're not listening any more.

I'm not a strike breaker.
I've been out on all of them.
It's just this is the only place I know where I can ask the "difficult" questions and get real answers from informed people.
I work in a large mail centre and I intend to see this dispute right through to the bitter end.
Oh and the people I work with all seem to know fck all about what's really going on in this dispute.

"What's really going on"? Have you not SEEN what Royal Mail are trying to do to our working lives?!

Because all the people I work with have. And that's why we're fighting.

Oh and by the way. Why did you think I was referring to you as a strike breaking troll?

[TopperGas]

It is obvious all the posturing and flag waving is not gong to make one iota of difference with Simon Thompson.

If people continue to strike after the legal protections end on the 23 they are in breach of contract and subject to the disciplinary process.

The CWU will face an injunction through the courts as well at considerable costs in continuing the strikes without legal protections in place.

What happened to last comment? Seems ur willy waving again. I also like how you're adding in the CWU facing an injunction through the courts now it been mentioned by someone else. How didn't your 5yrs of law not pick that up earlier?

Just for the record I think the CWU would do well to communicate where they stand and what their reasoning is, just to stop all this panic, and scaremongering.

I understand it may not be possible for the to do this for a number of reasons, from waiting for legal advice to not showing their hand.

Personally I find it unlikely he'll dismiss 115,000 employees. It would be an absolute legal minefield proving he's made a valid effort to resolve this. Not to mention the place would grind to halt, literally overnight, for god knows how long.

Honestly tho, parroting how you interpret the same paragraph from a website, doesn't make you an employment law whizz.

Do they need to actually dismiss anybody rather than simply announce if any further strikes take place then employees could be considered for dismissal, if they did would the CWU just be forced to cave in again so ending the IA?

[TopperGas]

Probably people saying this could never happen would have said last week that the company would never refuse to pay sick pay as they'd face grievance claims etc!!

Is a thread you can recommend on this subject, the subject of refusal to pay sick pay?

Many Thanks.

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=107973

[Halfhappy]

It is obvious all the posturing and flag waving is not gong to make one iota of difference with Simon Thompson.

If people continue to strike after the legal protections end on the 23 they are in breach of contract and subject to the disciplinary process.

The CWU will face an injunction through the courts as well at considerable costs in continuing the strikes without legal protections in place.

What happened to last comment? Seems ur willy waving again. I also like how you're adding in the CWU facing an injunction through the courts now it been mentioned by someone else. How didn't your 5yrs of law not pick that up earlier?

Just for the record I think the CWU would do well to communicate where they stand and what their reasoning is, just to stop all this panic, and scaremongering.

I understand it may not be possible for the to do this for a number of reasons, from waiting for legal advice to not showing their hand.

Personally I find it unlikely he'll dismiss 115,000 employees. It would be an absolute legal minefield proving he's made a valid effort to resolve this. Not to mention the place would grind to halt, literally overnight, for god knows how long.

Honestly tho, parroting how you interpret the same paragraph from a website, doesn't make you an employment law whizz.

Do they need to actually dismiss anybody rather than simply announce if any further strikes take place then employees could be considered for dismissal, if they did would the CWU just be forced to cave in again so ending the IA?

I don't know, and I don't think anyone in here does. That's purely my opinion. All I know is constantly repeating your take on the same paragraph, like it's fact, doesn't answer any of it, and isn't helping anyone (not saying you're doing that, TopperGas, btw). People are just speculating, and in a state of stress and panic, speculation is never good. That's why I think a bit clarity from the CWU would be great.

[Eduardo]

Oh god Tommo's strike breaking goblins are all out.

Oh and by the way. Why did you think I was referring to you as a strike breaking troll?

It's been a very long day but I assumed you meant I was one of Tommos Goblin mates and that Tommo and I were working as a team to demoralise and corrupt members striking spirit.
That's what I instantly thought upon reading your comment which led me to become all defensive see.
Simples

[sindba]

It is obvious all the posturing and flag waving is not gong to make one iota of difference with Simon Thompson.

If people continue to strike after the legal protections end on the 23 they are in breach of contract and subject to the disciplinary process.

The CWU will face an injunction through the courts as well at considerable costs in continuing the strikes without legal protections in place.

What happened to last comment? Seems ur willy waving again. I also like how you're adding in the CWU facing an injunction through the courts now it been mentioned by someone else. How didn't your 5yrs of law not pick that up earlier?

Just for the record I think the CWU would do well to communicate where they stand and what their reasoning is, just to stop all this panic, and scaremongering.

I understand it may not be possible for the to do this for a number of reasons, from waiting for legal advice to not showing their hand.

Personally I find it unlikely he'll dismiss 115,000 employees. It would be an absolute legal minefield proving he's made a valid effort to resolve this. Not to mention the place would grind to halt, literally overnight, for god knows how long.

Honestly tho, parroting how you interpret the same paragraph from a website, doesn't make you an employment law whizz.

Do they need to actually dismiss anybody rather than simply announce if any further strikes take place then employees could be considered for dismissal, if they did would the CWU just be forced to cave in again so ending the IA?

You think Royal Mail would be mad enough to threaten to illegally sack 100,000 workers and destroy their own company? By this time next week?

I mean, it's an option I suppose!