Royal Mail pension news and discussion.Please note the advise given in this forum is unofficial, please use the links we have for a more detailed response or see an independent financial adviser.
rockytony67 wrote:All I want to know is what the legal position is as regards the pension changes, not you shouldn't have voted for or against the deal, or my k#nb is bigger then yours, come on people this is major issue. The deal was voted in, END OF STORY it doesnt matter if I like it or you like it, the deal is what the membership voted for, if people are not happy with the deal then they can vote out those they hold responsible.
Don't know? But given the CWU track record in seeking to have the law enforced,i.e. the illegal use of agency labour in the last dispute, no. of prosecutions = 0 , would legality have any bearing?
There was 1 legal case but RM one that one and we could not strike for that day
Yes ,did'nt do much to restore my faith in the legal system,as I recall CWU was required to inform RM of the exact no. to take IA. Perhaps striking is now illegal?
But I have read elsewhere that the High Court has said that when there are changes to pension schemes the promises given at that time have to be upheld, so why are RM not being held accountable for that?
rockytony67 wrote:But I have read elsewhere that the High Court has said that when there are changes to pension schemes the promises given at that time have to be upheld, so why are RM not being held accountable for that?
Because when you have friend's in high place's (GORDON BROWN) you can get away with anything!.
Given that the CWU have had MONTHS to examine the fine detail of our pensions, if there had been anything we could challenge RM on, it would have been highlighted by now.
rockytony67 wrote:Yes but don't people think it is strange that we have had no statements from the union as regards there legal options
"rockytony67" have you got anything to tell us or if not maybe you should ask billy hayes himself at our union website www.cwu.org FOR IF HE CANNOT GIVE YOU THE ANSWER TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION NO ONE ON HERE WILL!. FOR HE HAS NOT TOLD ANYONE OF US ON THIS SITE AT LEAST!.
Night Tonic wrote:Given that the CWU have had MONTHS to examine the fine detail of our pensions, if there had been anything we could challenge RM on, it would have been highlighted by now.
So why have we never been told that's the case, we've been told nothing pro or con, as a union member for 23 years I WANT TO KNOW THE LEGAL POSTION, my Area Rep doesnt know, Ive asked a Div rep he don't know, whats going on?
rockytony67 wrote:Yes but don't people think it is strange that we have had no statements from the union as regards there legal options
"rockytony67" have you got anything to tell us or if not maybe you should ask billy hayes himself at our union website www.cwu.org FOR IF HE CANNOT GIVE YOU THE ANSWER TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION NO ONE ON HERE WILL!. FOR HE HAS NOT TOLD ANYONE OF US ON THIS SITE AT LEAST!.
Sorry k979aaa I think we posted at the same time, as regards emailing HQ I haven't but as I've said i've asked Area reps, Div reps and they don't know
rockytony67 wrote:Yes but don't people think it is strange that we have had no statements from the union as regards there legal options
"rockytony67" have you got anything to tell us or if not maybe you should ask billy hayes himself at our union website www.cwu.org FOR IF HE CANNOT GIVE YOU THE ANSWER TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION NO ONE ON HERE WILL!. FOR HE HAS NOT TOLD ANYONE OF US ON THIS SITE AT LEAST!.
Sorry k979aaa I think we posted at the same time, as regards emailing HQ I haven't but as I've said i've asked Area reps, Div reps and they don't know
And if they don't know and we on this site don't know it's the only way to go!. GOOD THREAD BY THE WAY AND IS A GOOD IDEA FOR WE MUST USE ALL MEAN'S!.
Night Tonic wrote:Given that the CWU have had MONTHS to examine the fine detail of our pensions, if there had been anything we could challenge RM on, it would have been highlighted by now.
So why have we never been told that's the case, we've been told nothing pro or con, as a union member for 23 years I WANT TO KNOW THE LEGAL POSTION, my Area Rep doesnt know, Ive asked a Div rep he don't know, whats going on?
There was also no statement from HQ regarding the the alteration of starting times. This was a change to your contract of employment, and as such required your workplace representatives approval, or acceptance by default, Guess which occurred ,but you'll find no mention in any LTB. Draw your own conclusions, but increased participation can only strengthen democracy
Aye, but all employers reserve the right to vary working hours according to the requirements of whatever type of business they run. They have an obligation to look at any problems this might cause employees great issues but otherwise they do reserve that right - yet to see a contract of employment (or associated paperwork) anywhere that didn't have that clause. Any approval with a rep isn't much more than a nod. You could strike sure, but they still retain the right to vary working hours.
As for CWU HQ being informative, we're all used to instant access to information but CWU top brass run everything though lawyers before they make statements which is why it is doubtful if there is a legal challenge available to them - or at least not one they feel ready to publish.
"Where an imposed change involves a significant change to the contract, eg: a reduction in pay or alteration of working hours, an employer may well be acting in fundamental breach of contract. Where there is a fundamental breach, the employee may treat the breach as bringing the contract to an end and leave the job. In such circumstances and subject to having the necessary qualifying service, the employee will have the opportunity to make a claim of constructive dismissal before an employment tribunal. In coming to a decision the tribunal will take into account whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances of the case."
Then check the fine print. RM would uphold the recent change on the basis of the change to EC laws on lorry speeds - and did.
RM upheld nothing because it was not contested in court . If it had been and judgement had been returned in RM's favour then the presiding judge would have been the one to uphold this point.
Given the fact that RM's application to Postcomm to vary delivery times stated the need to allow DSA providers extra time to meet their handover deadlines as a prime justification, any self respecting member of the judiciary would obviously have weighted the claimed relevant factors, ie 4mph speed reduction vs failure of DSA to achieve deadlines.It's not rocket science ,even a cursory glance tells you 4mph can't account for the delay
