Reserves/Floaters and DM26

[Barnacle]

You have grounds for a claim of discrimination. Contact your branch and ask for the equality rep.

No you don't.

Under the terms of the USO Agreement, yes they do

“Discrimination” arises when the Equality Act is engaged, ie, when someone is discriminated against because of a characteristic protected by the Act (age, sex, sexuality, disability, etc). Being a non-driver isn’t a protected characteristic. There is no claim!

Discrimination isn’t restricted to the protected characteristics of the Equality Act. You do know that.

[Benson97]

Obviously my contract does not mention i have to drive for the company, so i would assume they either have to provide me with a non driving role, offer me a transfer to an office with HCT duties or make me redundant.

[Barnacle]

Obviously my contract does not mention i have to drive for the company, so i would assume they either have to provide me with a non driving role, offer me a transfer to an office with HCT duties or make me redundant.

Correct. However in the first instance, they have arranged the office into pods which exclude non-drivers. PODs aren’t a must have.

[Benson97]

Obviously my contract does not mention i have to drive for the company, so i would assume they either have to provide me with a non driving role, offer me a transfer to an office with HCT duties or make me redundant.

Correct. However in the first instance, they have arranged the office into pods which exclude non-drivers. PODs aren’t a must have.

What is the alternative to pods in DM26?

[Barnacle]

Obviously my contract does not mention i have to drive for the company, so i would assume they either have to provide me with a non driving role, offer me a transfer to an office with HCT duties or make me redundant.

Correct. However in the first instance, they have arranged the office into pods which exclude non-drivers. PODs aren’t a must have.

What is the alternative to pods in DM26?

Well there are offices that are almost all HCT. Rural duties don’t work in a POD.

As long as you are taking extra and doing it 50/50, it doesn’t matter how it is set up.

[Smoothbackground]

You have grounds for a claim of discrimination. Contact your branch and ask for the equality rep.

No you don't.

Under the terms of the USO Agreement, yes they do

“Discrimination” arises when the Equality Act is engaged, ie, when someone is discriminated against because of a characteristic protected by the Act (age, sex, sexuality, disability, etc). Being a non-driver isn’t a protected characteristic. There is no claim!

Discrimination isn’t restricted to the protected characteristics of the Equality Act. You do know that.

I’m afraid I don’t know that at all. As far as I am aware, the only employment law claim an employee can bring for discrimination arises under the Equality Act and would arise only by you demonstrating that any discrimination suffered was as a result of a “protected characteristic”. Please enlighten us with your alternative opinion. Otherwise, please take it from me that there is no claim!

[Barnacle]

You have grounds for a claim of discrimination. Contact your branch and ask for the equality rep.

No you don't.

Under the terms of the USO Agreement, yes they do

“Discrimination” arises when the Equality Act is engaged, ie, when someone is discriminated against because of a characteristic protected by the Act (age, sex, sexuality, disability, etc). Being a non-driver isn’t a protected characteristic. There is no claim!

Discrimination isn’t restricted to the protected characteristics of the Equality Act. You do know that.

I’m afraid I don’t know that at all. As far as I am aware, the only employment law claim an employee can bring for discrimination arises under the Equality Act and would arise only by you demonstrating that any discrimination suffered was as a result of a “protected characteristic”. Please enlighten us with your alternative opinion. Otherwise, please take it from me that there is no claim!

Who said anything about a claim under the Equality Act or even an Employment Law claim? No one.

Stop trying to invite a pile on.

[Smoothbackground]

You advised the OP to speak to the equality rep as he/she had a discrimination claim. Under which legislation would this employee’s claim be brought?

Where I do agree with you, though, is your comment that pods definitely aren’t a must have. If local implementation at Benson’s office has unnecessarily adopted a pod configuration which strands four existing non-drivers despite the national agreement expressly preserving an active role for non-drivers, that’s the point I’d be hammering with managers and local reps.

[Barnacle]

You advised the OP to speak to the equality rep as he/she had a discrimination claim. Under which legislation would this employee’s claim be brought?

Where I do agree with you, though, is your comment that pods definitely aren’t a must have. If local implementation at Benson’s office has unnecessarily adopted a pod configuration which strands four existing non-drivers despite the national agreement expressly preserving an active role for non-drivers, that’s the point I’d be hammering with managers and local reps.

The Equality Rep deals with all aspects of discrimination. You contact them to have more power in your elbow.

No one said anything about taking it to the Supreme Court

[clashcityrocker]

If local implementation at Benson’s office has unnecessarily adopted a pod configuration which strands four existing non-drivers despite the national agreement expressly preserving an active role for non-drivers,

We don't know that the pod configuration is unnecessary.
The national agreement doesn't state that there is a role for every non driver in the unit and it doesn't state that the role will be in their current office.

[Smoothbackground]

If local implementation at Benson’s office has unnecessarily adopted a pod configuration which strands four existing non-drivers despite the national agreement expressly preserving an active role for non-drivers,

We don't know that the pod configuration is unnecessary.
The national agreement doesn't state that there is a role for every non driver in the unit and it doesn't state that the role will be in their current office.

That is also true. However, it does sound as if the pod setup might not be the right fit for Benson’s small office,

[Benson97]

If local implementation at Benson’s office has unnecessarily adopted a pod configuration which strands four existing non-drivers despite the national agreement expressly preserving an active role for non-drivers,

We don't know that the pod configuration is unnecessary.
The national agreement doesn't state that there is a role for every non driver in the unit and it doesn't state that the role will be in their current office.

That is also true. However, it does sound as if the pod setup might not be the right fit for Benson’s small office,

What would be a better method do you think?

[Barnacle]

In an office of 16 walks, there should be 3 cover staff under DM26.

Offices are to remain fully staffed because come mid November, you will all be back on your walks for peak.

[Smoothbackground]

What would be a better method do you think?

Not sure there is a better method if I am honest, sorry bud. Perhaps this is a clear example of how the business needs a VR process in place now, as there is, and will be, a “surplus” under DM26.

The CWU didn’t tell people the realities of how it would play out. At my own DO - a large DO - there is carnage as senior posties fight and quarrel over a handful of rurals and firms duties, things getting quite nasty and lifelong friends falling out. We have two non drivers who have suddenly said they will drive, one swiping a firms duty from someone who thought he had bagged it. Atmosphere is awful throughout. The situation is engineered and contrived so people end up walking anyway.

[Barnacle]

Actually, are all the non-drivers non-drivers, or do some simply not drive for RM?