Leaving the CWU

[aiden01]

If I were Royal Mail I would do all that the minute there's a no vote.

Divided membership.
Chaotic leadership.
Invalid/almost exhausted strike ballot.
The deal you believe is as far as you can go rejected.

Not much to lose, might as well go for it.
I would if I were in their shoes.

Personally have no doubt they will do it if its a no vote.

[Woody Guthrie]

If they could do all of this without a deal agreed by the union leadership and its members, why didn't they do it ages ago and save themselves the £900 bung?

Two things really.

First of all they weren't dealing with a divided membership, chaotic leadership and a rejection then.

And secondly I think they would prefer a deal but if this one is rejected it's going to look increasingly likely that the members won't give them one... on terms they would find acceptable.

So... after 12 months of trying to get a deal and the clock ticking on an increasingly desperate financial position I suspect they're unlikely to be up for wasting any more time.

[HiVizFashionIcon]

If they could do all of this without a deal agreed by the union leadership and its members, why didn't they do it ages ago and save themselves the £900 bung?

Two things really.

First of all they weren't dealing with a divided membership, chaotic leadership and a rejection then.

And secondly I think they would prefer a deal but if this one is rejected it's going to look increasingly likely that the members won't give them one... on terms they would find acceptable.

So... after 12 months of trying to get a deal and the clock ticking on an increasingly desperate financial position I suspect they're unlikely to be up for wasting any more time.

A company that's obsessed with maximising shareholder value is happy to spend millions via lump sum bribes on convincing members to give them a Yes that they supposedly don't need to begin with? I'm not convinced.

[k979aaa]

The fact Is the people who replace us are not interested in unions and think they can manage us all well good luck and do one on that!

[Acca Dacca]

If they could do all of this without a deal agreed by the union leadership and its members, why didn't they do it ages ago and save themselves the £900 bung?

Two things really.

First of all they weren't dealing with a divided membership, chaotic leadership and a rejection then.

And secondly I think they would prefer a deal but if this one is rejected it's going to look increasingly likely that the members won't give them one... on terms they would find acceptable.

So... after 12 months of trying to get a deal and the clock ticking on an increasingly desperate financial position I suspect they're unlikely to be up for wasting any more time.

A company that's obsessed with maximising shareholder value is happy to spend millions via lump sum bribes on convincing members to give them a Yes that they supposedly don't need to begin with? I'm not convinced.

I think even those who keep peddling this line that RM can get all they want without an agreement, know their argument doesn't make any sense.

It just suits their narrative that voting NO is futile.

There are reasons to vote YES but dont let the people trying to convince us that RM will get everything they want anyway be the main reason.

[Woody Guthrie]

Nobody says they can get all they want without an agreement.
What they can do is make up for things they can't get by doubling down on the things they can.

They've already cut the VR package in half without an agreement, they can implement any sick pay policy they want, they have shown that they can end all union facility agreements, they have dismissed members and reps for little or no reason, they can bring in any performance criteria they want, indoor methods, separate parcel hub business, owner drivers, pretty much anything they want.

They tore up the last agreement.
How much evidence do you want?

Denial isn't just a river in Africa apparently.

[postslippete]

The fact that they have cut the VR package and many staff would still take it is quite telling of how bad things have got within the company. The Union should never have got any sort of an agreement until all the reps and members cases were resolved. Just seems like the Union have washed their hands of them and it's wrong.

But tell me about any performance criteria that they might bring in. Although ST has left the company in an official capacity, the Select Committee did throw some light into this especially as regards PDA monitoring.

[Flashman_]

I thought it might be useful for some on here to take a look at this website https://www.davidsonmorris.com/collective-bargaining/ (other sites are available with the same info BTW)

The site is aimed at helping employers and clearly explains the laws with regard to contracts and collective bargaining, and what employers can and cannot do.
The point here is that it does not, at any time say the employer can disregard what becomes our contract in instances like ours where we have existing collective agreements in place.
For example it states:
"Where collective bargaining has led to an agreement, for example, a pay increase or improved working conditions, the resulting outcome is called a collective agreement. This agreement should then become a legally enforceable part of each employee’s contract of employment"

It also points out this:
"Once the collective agreement forms part of a contract of employment, this cannot be changed without further union negotiations. Failing to apply collectively agreed terms and conditions can be treated as breach of contract."

I would like to know what information or under what method those who think RM can just push though anything they want without a yes vote, in the context of what this site suggests.

[LouBarlow]

I thought it might be useful for some on here to take a look at this website https://www.davidsonmorris.com/collective-bargaining/ (other sites are available with the same info BTW)

The site is aimed at helping employers and clearly explains the laws with regard to contracts and collective bargaining, and what employers can and cannot do.
The point here is that it does not, at any time say the employer can disregard what becomes our contract in instances like ours where we have existing collective agreements in place.
For example it states:
"Where collective bargaining has led to an agreement, for example, a pay increase or improved working conditions, the resulting outcome is called a collective agreement. This agreement should then become a legally enforceable part of each employee’s contract of employment"

It also points out this:
"Once the collective agreement forms part of a contract of employment, this cannot be changed without further union negotiations. Failing to apply collectively agreed terms and conditions can be treated as breach of contract."

I would like to know what information or under what method those who think RM can just push though anything they want without a yes vote, in the context of what this site suggests.

Our previous agreements were torn up when we staged industrial action, hence why all of these changes have been brought in since. There is a clause in them that clearly states this.

[Acca Dacca]

Nobody says they can get all they want without an agreement.
............

'' ....pretty much anything they want''

Cmon now Woody

There are posters on here who are telling anyone who will listen that RM can and will get everything they want without an agreement - you can say nobody is saying that but we have all read it.

But lets suppose they can, that then goes back to the original question - why are they bothering with a deal, paying lump sums, making concessions, keeping the union involved? You have demonstrably proven they dont need to.

[LouBarlow]

Nobody says they can get all they want without an agreement.
............

'' ....pretty much anything they want''

Cmon now Woody

There are posters on here who are telling anyone who will listen that RM can and will get everything they want without an agreement - you can say nobody is saying that but we have all read it.

But lets suppose they can, that then goes back to the original question - why are they bothering with a deal, paying lump sums, making concessions, keeping the union involved? You have demonstrably proven they dont need to.

This has been answered so many times now. RM have fully costed this agreement. They have taken into account every aspect and have weighed up how the concessions will impact on them financially. They want a compliant workforce, not industrial action. Stability is good for the share price and the shareholders. When you have financial stability you then have access to credit going forward and access to liquidity. If no deal is reached after this vote, RM will have to outline a financial plan to keep the company afloat. I.e. change.

[Acca Dacca]

Nobody says they can get all they want without an agreement.
............

'' ....pretty much anything they want''

Cmon now Woody

There are posters on here who are telling anyone who will listen that RM can and will get everything they want without an agreement - you can say nobody is saying that but we have all read it.

But lets suppose they can, that then goes back to the original question - why are they bothering with a deal, paying lump sums, making concessions, keeping the union involved? You have demonstrably proven they dont need to.

This has been answered so many times now. RM have fully costed this agreement. They have taken into account every aspect and have weighed up how the concessions will impact on them financially. They want a compliant workforce, not industrial action. Stability is good for the share price and the shareholders. When you have financial stability you then have access to credit going forward and access to liquidity. If no deal is reached after this vote, RM will have to outline a financial plan to keep the company afloat. I.e. change.

The same access to credit that was to be used to 'defeat the union'? How does that work then?

[Flashman_]

I thought it might be useful for some on here to take a look at this website https://www.davidsonmorris.com/collective-bargaining/ (other sites are available with the same info BTW)

The site is aimed at helping employers and clearly explains the laws with regard to contracts and collective bargaining, and what employers can and cannot do.
The point here is that it does not, at any time say the employer can disregard what becomes our contract in instances like ours where we have existing collective agreements in place.
For example it states:
"Where collective bargaining has led to an agreement, for example, a pay increase or improved working conditions, the resulting outcome is called a collective agreement. This agreement should then become a legally enforceable part of each employee’s contract of employment"

It also points out this:
"Once the collective agreement forms part of a contract of employment, this cannot be changed without further union negotiations. Failing to apply collectively agreed terms and conditions can be treated as breach of contract."

I would like to know what information or under what method those who think RM can just push though anything they want without a yes vote, in the context of what this site suggests.

Our previous agreements were torn up when we staged industrial action, hence why all of these changes have been brought in since. There is a clause in them that clearly states this.

It does not matter that the agreement was "torn up" because as that site pointed out those agreements become our legal contracts. At the very Least our T&C would default to a previous agreement before the agreement with the mad no strike clause in it.
Besides, if one side breaks the agreement, that does not follow that the other side can ignore that agreement (our contracts), it does however mean that the side breaking the agreement(contract) would be in breach of contract and could then really only be challenged in a court.
As I understand it RM was actually in breach of our previous agreement, before any strikes took place. I do not really understand why the union did not result to law at that point but instead asked for strike action.
All I do know is that we do have legal protections in contract law which the company would likely have to fight out in court if they tried to impose the most egregious changes. I think that is what explains their willingness to buy our votes rather that go down that very precarious route of breaking our contracts.

[Woody Guthrie]

Again though people are making the mistake in thinking that employment law stops an employer making changes.

It doesn't stop anything, it simply means that you may be able (depending on your individual circumstances, the level of change and whether these changes were considered to be actually covered by your contract) to claim breach of contract.

It's not bullet proof vest, it's more like a first aid kit for after you've been shot.

I do not really understand why the union did not result to law at that point but instead asked for strike action.

Again this is a misreading of the situation.
When Royal Mail tears up an agreement they do not breach a contract with the union so the union cannot pursue any legal route.

The potential breach of contract is with the individual employee so it would be up to each individual employee to pursue Royal Mail for breach of contract not the union.

I've been to a few employment tribunals, they are generally pro-employer, the employer has the advantage of the expensive and experienced legal team and a "good" result from a constructive dismissal is often a small amount of financial compensation without reinstatement.

It's a dangerous path and not something anyone should see as a safety net, Royal Mail's very expensive legal team will risk assess any changes beforehand (as they've clearly done with the VR terms) to see what their exposure will be and they'll use any one of the multiple holes in employment law to implement change.

It might slow them down slightly, they may have to bring some things like later starts at a slower pace than they would like to but it won't stop anything.

[postslippete]

This has been answered so many times now. RM have fully costed this agreement. They have taken into account every aspect and have weighed up how the concessions will impact on them financially. They want a compliant workforce, not industrial action. Stability is good for the share price and the shareholders. When you have financial stability you then have access to credit going forward and access to liquidity. If no deal is reached after this vote, RM will have to outline a financial plan to keep the company afloat. I.e. change.

I've said all along that the RM board desperately need this deal. They haven't paid out an interim dividend and the share price is just above its 52 week low. The last thing that Royal Mail want is any further industrial unrest after the financial losses this year. And you're quite right about the share price because Royal Mail spent £200 million of the profits that we made due to the pandemic on a share buyback. The one thing that RM do have is a strong balance sheet and £1.7 billion in available liquidity which means that they always had access to this credit going forward. One bad financial year for this company doesn't mean that the company is plunging headfirst into administration!! But I agree, if no deal is reached that won't prevent this company from making changes mainly because our cost base is much higher than our competitors.