New sick policy

[Flashman_]

Even if the company could claim that our strike allowed them to tear up our contract or the part which relates to sick pay it would have to go to court to argue that they had that right. However if that situation did give them that option(which it clearly does not or they would have already done it) then the previous agreement before that insane strike clause was put in would be the default contract/agreement that would then have to be used. That agreement still had a sick policy the same or better than it is now.
So, no they cannot just impose stuff, without being governed by one or more of our previous agreements.
Sorry Lou, you are just wrong, ultimately any dispute like this could end up in court, and they could not simply ignore previous agreements, and things like custom and practice.

[thefox]

Even if the company could claim that our strike allowed them to tear up our contract or the part which relates to sick pay it would have to go to court to argue that they had that right. However if that situation did give them that option(which it clearly does not or they would have already done it) then the previous agreement before that insane strike clause was put in would be the default contract/agreement that would then have to be used. That agreement still had a sick policy the same or better than it is now.
So, no they cannot just impose stuff, without being governed by one or more of our previous agreements.
Sorry Lou, you are just wrong, ultimately any dispute like this could end up in court, and they could not simply ignore previous agreements, and things like custom and practice.

This all day long if they could have imposed it without agreement they would have already,don't know why people can't see that.

[LouBarlow]

Even if the company could claim that our strike allowed them to tear up our contract or the part which relates to sick pay it would have to go to court to argue that they had that right. However if that situation did give them that option(which it clearly does not or they would have already done it) then the previous agreement before that insane strike clause was put in would be the default contract/agreement that would then have to be used. That agreement still had a sick policy the same or better than it is now.
So, no they cannot just impose stuff, without being governed by one or more of our previous agreements.
Sorry Lou, you are just wrong, ultimately any dispute like this could end up in court, and they could not simply ignore previous agreements, and things like custom and practice.

This all day long if they could have imposed it without agreement they would have already,don't know why people can't see that.

We had agreements before though. They weren’t going to ram in changes to sickness policies while negotiating with the CWU. If there is no agreement after this vote you can be sure they will be changing the policy regardless.

[Acca Dacca]

Even if the company could claim that our strike allowed them to tear up our contract or the part which relates to sick pay it would have to go to court to argue that they had that right. However if that situation did give them that option(which it clearly does not or they would have already done it) then the previous agreement before that insane strike clause was put in would be the default contract/agreement that would then have to be used. That agreement still had a sick policy the same or better than it is now.
So, no they cannot just impose stuff, without being governed by one or more of our previous agreements.
Sorry Lou, you are just wrong, ultimately any dispute like this could end up in court, and they could not simply ignore previous agreements, and things like custom and practice.

This all day long if they could have imposed it without agreement they would have already,don't know why people can't see that.

We had agreements before though. They weren’t going to ram in changes to sickness policies while negotiating with the CWU. If there is no agreement after this vote you can be sure they will be changing the policy regardless.

Don’t think you should be sure of anything given the wrong information you’ve been posting on this thread

[thefox]

Even if the company could claim that our strike allowed them to tear up our contract or the part which relates to sick pay it would have to go to court to argue that they had that right. However if that situation did give them that option(which it clearly does not or they would have already done it) then the previous agreement before that insane strike clause was put in would be the default contract/agreement that would then have to be used. That agreement still had a sick policy the same or better than it is now.
So, no they cannot just impose stuff, without being governed by one or more of our previous agreements.
Sorry Lou, you are just wrong, ultimately any dispute like this could end up in court, and they could not simply ignore previous agreements, and things like custom and practice.

This all day long if they could have imposed it without agreement they would have already,don't know why people can't see that.

We had agreements before though. They weren’t going to ram in changes to sickness policies while negotiating with the CWU. If there is no agreement after this vote you can be sure they will be changing the policy regardless.

They have rammed through revisions and siso think you are giving them to much credit

[freespeech]

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=109639

It reads to me that the new rules would apply from the start so your 1st absence in 12 months from the 1st August regardless of previous absences should be fully paid, then further absences paid as per the agreement.

No idea if they can implement it if the agreement doesn't get voted in though, also wonder what happens if you're currently on a stage 1 or 2 I'd guess the new stricter rules would apply before you get off them.

Can’t implement it if there is no agreement, as it’s effectively changing your contract terms and conditions which is illegal.

I'm waiting to see what happens too. The business may take the view that there is collective bargaining and they do have an agreement with the CWU. That was endorsed by the PEC. I'm intrigued what the legal position is.

[broughts]

Could just go to a branch vote in worst case scenario just like average holiday pay aggrement

[Acca Dacca]

Even if the company could claim that our strike allowed them to tear up our contract or the part which relates to sick pay it would have to go to court to argue that they had that right. However if that situation did give them that option(which it clearly does not or they would have already done it) then the previous agreement before that insane strike clause was put in would be the default contract/agreement that would then have to be used. That agreement still had a sick policy the same or better than it is now.
So, no they cannot just impose stuff, without being governed by one or more of our previous agreements.
Sorry Lou, you are just wrong, ultimately any dispute like this could end up in court, and they could not simply ignore previous agreements, and things like custom and practice.

This all day long if they could have imposed it without agreement they would have already,don't know why people can't see that.

We had agreements before though. They weren’t going to ram in changes to sickness policies while negotiating with the CWU. If there is no agreement after this vote you can be sure they will be changing the policy regardless.

They have rammed through revisions and siso think you are giving them to much credit

Neither of those are contractual changes

Things like mandatory Sunday working, annualised hours, commit to deliver and sick pay terms all need to be agreed and can’t be forced without a change of contract unless RM want to start breaking employment law or going down fire and rehire and all the repercussions for them that come with that

That’s why they were keen for uptake in VRs to get rid of some on the current contract and are changing the future contracts for new entrants to differ from ours - they CAN do THAT but not so easy to be changing the contracts of current employees

[Zicomurphy]

The CWU have stated on several occasions that before they reached an agreement Royal Mail informed them they intended to bring in changes to sick pay from this April by executive action.

So either

A - CWU have lied about this to their entire membership.

B - Royal Mail were quite happy to break employment law.

C - Those saying they can’t change sick pay policy without agreement are completely wrong.

[Acca Dacca]

The CWU have stated on several occasions that before they reached an agreement Royal Mail informed them they intended to bring in changes to sick pay from this April by executive action.

So either

A - CWU have lied about this to their entire membership.

B - Royal Mail were quite happy to break employment law.

C - Those saying they can’t change sick pay policy without agreement are completely wrong.

They also told us that it was only the CWU and our strike action that stopped them forcing us to work Sundays and things like commit to deliver being implemented

The truth is both of those couldn’t have been forced upon us easily anyway

[thefox]

Even if the company could claim that our strike allowed them to tear up our contract or the part which relates to sick pay it would have to go to court to argue that they had that right. However if that situation did give them that option(which it clearly does not or they would have already done it) then the previous agreement before that insane strike clause was put in would be the default contract/agreement that would then have to be used. That agreement still had a sick policy the same or better than it is now.
So, no they cannot just impose stuff, without being governed by one or more of our previous agreements.
Sorry Lou, you are just wrong, ultimately any dispute like this could end up in court, and they could not simply ignore previous agreements, and things like custom and practice.

This all day long if they could have imposed it without agreement they would have already,don't know why people can't see that.

We had agreements before though. They weren’t going to ram in changes to sickness policies while negotiating with the CWU. If there is no agreement after this vote you can be sure they will be changing the policy regardless.

They have rammed through revisions and siso think you are giving them to much credit

Neither of those are contractual changes

Things like mandatory Sunday working, annualised hours, commit to deliver and sick pay terms all need to be agreed and can’t be forced without a change of contract unless RM want to start breaking employment law or going down fire and rehire and all the repercussions for them that come with that

That’s why they were keen for uptake in VRs to get rid of some on the current contract and are changing the future contracts for new entrants to differ from ours - they CAN do THAT but not so easy to be changing the contracts of current employees

Yeah i know.

[LouBarlow]

The CWU have stated on several occasions that before they reached an agreement Royal Mail informed them they intended to bring in changes to sick pay from this April by executive action.

So either

A - CWU have lied about this to their entire membership.

B - Royal Mail were quite happy to break employment law.

C - Those saying they can’t change sick pay policy without agreement are completely wrong.

In the case of Acca it is C. They are just wrong.

[Acca Dacca]

The CWU have stated on several occasions that before they reached an agreement Royal Mail informed them they intended to bring in changes to sick pay from this April by executive action.

So either

A - CWU have lied about this to their entire membership.

B - Royal Mail were quite happy to break employment law.

C - Those saying they can’t change sick pay policy without agreement are completely wrong.

In the case of Acca it is C. They are just wrong.

Ive provided evidence to back up what I have said. Youve yet to provide anything to back up your claims.

[postslippete]

Well, I've looked into my contract and I can't see anything about a variation clause that enables Royal Mail to unilaterally change my sick pay without my agreement.

As for breaking the contract when we were out on strike, the whole reason why the CWU called for IA was because they disagreed with the changes. Royal Mail can introduce revisions and SISO but anything contractual really needs to be agreed by the workforce.

Having a deal with the CWU might give the company something more legally binding but if they imposed contract changes by executive action then posties could go to tribunals for unfair dismissal. The important thing though is that staff need to disagree with the changes in writing and/or work under protest. This also applies to the company changing our working hours and I know of someone that has done this.

[TopperGas]

The CWU have stated on several occasions that before they reached an agreement Royal Mail informed them they intended to bring in changes to sick pay from this April by executive action.

So either

A - CWU have lied about this to their entire membership.

B - Royal Mail were quite happy to break employment law.

C - Those saying they can’t change sick pay policy without agreement are completely wrong.

They also told us that it was only the CWU and our strike action that stopped them forcing us to work Sundays and things like commit to deliver being implemented

The truth is both of those couldn’t have been forced upon us easily anyway

At present all posties are contracted to work a set number of hours per week, there's no way RM can force us to work extra hours doing commit to deliver, RM could tear up our contracts and go down the fire & rehire route but it's a dangerous one to follow with so many employees involved.