Could some of this agreement be illegal?

[Flashman_]

Sorry for the long nature of this post but please read and comment.

As I understand it some of the things in this agreement are contractual. In other words the union is giving away hard fought rights in return for what? is not at all clear.
I would like to know exactly and definitely which parts of the agreement are contractual and what is not. To that end could someone give me a clear answer to that ?
Part of the reason for asking this is because I hear all the time how the business will impose this stuff anyway, if we vote NO. However, if as I suspect, much in this agreement is contractual, the business simply cannot impose those contractual elements following a No vote without the Union, unless they tried the P&O trick.( which was found to be illegal)
I do know that the seasonal variation bollocks is definitely a contractual change as it alters the amount we are paid for our contracted hours. i.e. for 14 weeks in the winter we are to be paid less than for our current contracted hours. Or put another way the company will be withholding 2 hours pay per week for 14 weeks. This is actually illegal in my reading of Employment Rights Act 1996. It can only be made legal if written permission is introduced into our contracts specifically, and only then if the Union has the legal rights to do this. (which is by no means certain) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/13
It is also interesting that the Union has claimed the company have served notice on previous agreements which in their view if we voted no those agreements would not be adhered to by the company, which is why they claim to need a new agreement.
This is somewhat contradictory by the union because, surely if they have the legal right to introduce contractual changes as above, then those things from the last agreement (or for that matter any previous agreement ) would be in our contracts now, and therefore cannot be changed without agreement. If they now claim that they have not built previous agreements into our contracts then this latest one specifically mentioned above must be absolutely illegal, under UK employment Law.
If you take the seasonal variation aspect another way legally speaking, the Employment Rights Act 1996 also has something to say on that which , again seems to make it illegal. In this case if you are contracted to varying hours, as I read it, pay should be calculated over a 12 week period starting from when you start or altered a contract. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/222

[Acca Dacca]

Mandatory Sundays and commit to deliver were definetly just boogie men proposals as they could never have been imposed on us

The union are being a bit sneaky with the truth when they say that it was our action that stopped those coming in

They know those couldn’t have been forced on us from the get go

[guardianangel]

Maybe the rank and file could look into all this, something underhanded and sinister is happening here,maybe us posties could crowd fund and hire us the best employment lawyer money can buy.

[enskied]

Well, they are in daily breach of the USO illegal.
It is under investigation as to whether the PDA monitoring is legal or not.

I don't think the union has pushed hard enough anywhere to be honest.

[Poppyellie69]

Well said,I'm voting no!!!

[thefox]

I think if the union could impose these changes without our agreeing to it then they would have done it this union is not to be trusted.

[scoobymunster]

Bear in mind that the legality of something doesn't overly matter. P&O admitted to the Government that they knew what they did was illegal but did it anyway. They got a slap on the wrist at best so any big company can see that benefits from such actions can easily outway the potential repercussions.

[freespeech]

The way I see it is that legally the deal has been done. The CWU and RM work on the basis of collective agreement and this agreement has been ratified by the Exec too so RM have an agreement. I can't see anyhting in the words that states this is not agreed until a members vote.. The rank and file vote is nothing more than internal Politics and has no relevance legally.

[TopperGas]

Bear in mind that the legality of something doesn't overly matter. P&O admitted to the Government that they knew what they did was illegal but did it anyway. They got a slap on the wrist at best so any big company can see that benefits from such actions can easily outway the potential repercussions.

P&O's employees were all based "offshore" so they found a loophole around UK employment laws RM wouldn't have such a loophole, all they could do is fire & reward but then face paying massive compensation payments if found in the wrong. Plus P&O paid out substantial redundancy payments to less than 100 employees I can't see RM paying out similar payments to 50K+(?) posties.

Something doesn't sit right when our own union is using a PR blitz to try and make us vote yes surely they should be fighting for what it's members want, within reason, not trying to convince them to accept something they clearly don't want.

[TopperGas]

The way I see it is that legally the deal has been done. The CWU and RM work on the basis of collective agreement and this agreement has been ratified by the Exec too so RM have an agreement. I can't see anyhting in the words that states this is not agreed until a members vote.. The rank and file vote is nothing more than internal Politics and has no relevance legally.

I believe you are incorrect as any agreement must be subject to it's members voting yes, otherwise it's pointless having a ballot as they could just tell us they've reached an agreement and supply us with the details of what they've agreed.

[freespeech]

The way I see it is that legally the deal has been done. The CWU and RM work on the basis of collective agreement and this agreement has been ratified by the Exec too so RM have an agreement. I can't see anyhting in the words that states this is not agreed until a members vote.. The rank and file vote is nothing more than internal Politics and has no relevance legally.

I believe you are incorrect as any agreement must be subject to it's members voting yes, otherwise it's pointless having a ballot as they could just tell us they've reached an agreement and supply us with the details of what they've agreed.

Have a look at the deal.....it''s signed by RM and the CWU. There is no reference to a ballot anywhere. That's just internal politics. If you have collective bargaining then the union agree "on behalf of" the membership. To be clear I'm not saying it's the right thing but I am suggesting that "legally" there is a deal done.

[theotherone]

The way I see it is that legally the deal has been done. The CWU and RM work on the basis of collective agreement and this agreement has been ratified by the Exec too so RM have an agreement. I can't see anyhting in the words that states this is not agreed until a members vote.. The rank and file vote is nothing more than internal Politics and has no relevance legally.

I believe you are incorrect as any agreement must be subject to it's members voting yes, otherwise it's pointless having a ballot as they could just tell us they've reached an agreement and supply us with the details of what they've agreed.

Have a look at the deal.....it''s signed by RM and the CWU. There is no reference to a ballot anywhere. That's just internal politics. If you have collective bargaining then the union agree "on behalf of" the membership. To be clear I'm not saying it's the right thing but I am suggesting that "legally" there is a deal done.

So why did the company put a RNS out to the markets saying it was being put to the members.They would just say a deal was done.

[freespeech]

Well, they are in daily breach of the USO illegal.
It is under investigation as to whether the PDA monitoring is legal or not.

I don't think the union has pushed hard enough anywhere to be honest.

Of course it's legal......every other company gives you the details that driver x is 6 stops away. How is that any different to PDA actuals. Customers want the details if there was no tracking then there would be no delivery info available.

[pieoftheday]

The way I see it is that legally the deal has been done. The CWU and RM work on the basis of collective agreement and this agreement has been ratified by the Exec too so RM have an agreement. I can't see anyhting in the words that states this is not agreed until a members vote.. The rank and file vote is nothing more than internal Politics and has no relevance legally.

I believe you are incorrect as any agreement must be subject to it's members voting yes, otherwise it's pointless having a ballot as they could just tell us they've reached an agreement and supply us with the details of what they've agreed.

Have a look at the deal.....it''s signed by RM and the CWU. There is no reference to a ballot anywhere. That's just internal politics. If you have collective bargaining then the union agree "on behalf of" the membership. To be clear I'm not saying it's the right thing but I am suggesting that "legally" there is a deal done.

CWU Twitter feed says we get to vote on the agreement

[enskied]

Well, they are in daily breach of the USO illegal.
It is under investigation as to whether the PDA monitoring is legal or not.

I don't think the union has pushed hard enough anywhere to be honest.

Of course it's legal......every other company gives you the details that driver x is 6 stops away. How is that any different to PDA actuals. Customers want the details if there was no tracking then there would be no delivery info available.

What the other companies are doing is updating the progress of a parcel.
What RM are doing is tracking the delivery postman. Two very different things.
That's why Darren Jones ordered the investigation in to the legality of Rm's behaviour.
He's up to speed on legal matters.