An alternative view

[redlen]

Just say am not a delivery postman but employed within Royal Mail

Discussion over

[stevejm]

Nothing Royal Mail are doing breaches employment law.
Why do you think your contract of employment is being breached?

I'd rather get a qualified employment law expert to answer that thanks, mediated by the union. Have you seen the way the repick has been conducted. You can't tell me there aren't even grey areas that aren't potentially crossing the line there.
As you well know, law is always subjective anyway. Thanks for your input but totally unhelpful.

They are telling you what work is assigned to you when it comes to a repick. There's nothing illegal about it. Unfair? Possibly. But no different to what other employers tell you to what needs doing. Only thing they can't force you to do is go over your time currently.
[/quote
Again, respectfully I am simply saying there may be a case to investigate that's all. I'm not making any assertions whatsoever. But when you have some people seemingly given official duties and others not, without any selection criteria being clarified, when people are being displaced and replaced when work is there, when revisions have been worked out in a way that clearly seems unfair, than all I am saying is surely it needs looking at to check by somebody properly qualified.
You say it may be unfair. Clearly it does appear unfair. That in itself could be justification.
All I'm saying is if this is potentially a route to go down, to limit or prevent strikes to both protect the business and us, surely it should be considered, that's all.
I repeat I'm making absolutely no claims. I'm not an employment law expert but unless you are too, . . . .we simply can not say for certain.

If colleagues with 30+ years are losing their duties and there is a pattern across the country - and they invariably are losing them to younger colleagues- then would that be age discrimination ?

[redlen]

Duties do not belong to the employee, they are a part of the business. A manager can move you anytime with needs of the business if the duty holder has the required skills. So no age discrimination as long as the duty holder is capable of doing the task assigned.

[Postee2]

Nothing Royal Mail are doing breaches employment law.
Why do you think your contract of employment is being breached?

I'd rather get a qualified employment law expert to answer that thanks, mediated by the union. Have you seen the way the repick has been conducted. You can't tell me there aren't even grey areas that aren't potentially crossing the line there.
As you well know, law is always subjective anyway. Thanks for your input but totally unhelpful.

They are telling you what work is assigned to you when it comes to a repick. There's nothing illegal about it. Unfair? Possibly. But no different to what other employers tell you to what needs doing. Only thing they can't force you to do is go over your time currently.
[/quote
Again, respectfully I am simply saying there may be a case to investigate that's all. I'm not making any assertions whatsoever. But when you have some people seemingly given official duties and others not, without any selection criteria being clarified, when people are being displaced and replaced when work is there, when revisions have been worked out in a way that clearly seems unfair, than all I am saying is surely it needs looking at to check by somebody properly qualified.
You say it may be unfair. Clearly it does appear unfair. That in itself could be justification.
All I'm saying is if this is potentially a route to go down, to limit or prevent strikes to both protect the business and us, surely it should be considered, that's all.
I repeat I'm making absolutely no claims. I'm not an employment law expert but unless you are too, . . . .we simply can not say for certain.

If colleagues with 30+ years are losing their duties and there is a pattern across the country - and they invariably are losing them to younger colleagues- then would that be age discrimination ?

Something doesn't appear right on the face of it I'd agree with you entirely. Regardless of what anyone else says, I think the union should be at least exploring this avenue, and I hope they are.

[DonkeyOT]

Just say am not a delivery postman but employed within Royal Mail

Discussion over

Yes, your complete lack of understanding about delivery has been evident throughout your comments. Thanks for clarifying at last.

[DonkeyOT]

Just say am not a delivery postman but employed within Royal Mail

Discussion over

Yes, your complete lack of understanding about delivery has been evident throughout your comments. Thanks for clarifying at last.

[stevejm]

Duties do not belong to the employee, they are a part of the business.
Correct
A manager can move you anytime with needs of the business if the duty holder has the required skills.
Correct
So no age discrimination as long as the duty holder is capable of doing the task assigned.
In one off cases agree. But if there is a pattern then not so clear cut.
Moving a senior duty holder from his duty when there is no job performance motive to do so would raise the question "What was the manager's motive for doing so? What was that business need"
In the odd case then some bs pretext can be assigned. But if multiple cases occur in the same DO then anyone caring to investigate might rightly question whether some ulterior motive was not at play - namely harassment in order to demoralise older workers on a higher pay rate to resign and be replaced by cheaper labour

[Postee2]

Duties do not belong to the employee, they are a part of the business.
Correct
A manager can move you anytime with needs of the business if the duty holder has the required skills.
Correct
So no age discrimination as long as the duty holder is capable of doing the task assigned.
In one off cases agree. But if there is a pattern then not so clear cut.
Moving a senior duty holder from his duty when there is no job performance motive to do so would raise the question "What was the manager's motive for doing so? What was that business need"
In the odd case then some bs pretext can be assigned. But if multiple cases occur in the same DO then anyone caring to investigate might rightly question whether some ulterior motive was not at play - namely harassment in order to demoralise older workers on a higher pay rate to resign and be replaced by cheaper labour

Also Custom & Practice possibly ?

[stevejm]

no idea about that - explain

[redlen]

Custom and practice no longer exists with duties as it is not specifically implied in your contract of employment as binding

[Acca Dacca]

Just say am not a delivery postman but employed within Royal Mail

Discussion over

Employed within Royal Mail and doesn’t know what wilful delay is

Or indeed that wilful and intentional mean the same thing evidently

A “google lawyer” with delusions of grandeur - and not a very good one at that

[redlen]

Still acting the fool I see with your juvenile comments

[norris9]

Probably a cleaner.

[redlen]

Now you are quite content to be derogatory to a cleaner as though you think they have lower worth than yourself with their employment designation?

[Postee2]

no idea about that - explain

I believe if you have been performing a task for a long time you have protected rights under custom and practice law to continue doing so if there is a requirement for it to be done.
It feels to me, that displacing you from your custom and practice rights could potentially be discrimination.
Again, I don't know for sure but it feels very wrong and hope the union are exploring this avenue.