faithlilly wrote:BELIAL wrote:faithlilly wrote:Negotiate local agreements with Royal Mail management when when it suits management they disregard the agreement by claiming that it is not Royal Mail policy and the CWU do nothing ? My partner was sacked because management did not adhere to a locally agreed procedure concerning AOD.At his appeal he was told the local agreement wasn't Royal Mail policy and therefore didn't count and the CWU have done nothing to defend there own agreement. They have refused to represent my partner at tribunal and have used the Royal Mails' lies at his appeal as justification for doing so. You really couldn't make it up.
If what you state is correct, then the implications for all CWU members are huge. The last agreement placed the emphasis on local trials;negotiations and agreements.
That's how I feel B. My partner had an AOD. There is a local agreement in his area that states that a postperson must be told that his absence may be counted at the time of reporting the accident. This did not happen and it wasn't until 2 months later, and after my partner had had a run-in with the dismissing manager, that it was retrospectively counted. The line manager who my partner reported the accident to said at his appeal that she didn't realise the accident would result in an absence and therefore didn't warn him it may be counted, even though my partner had already been off for a week and the reason he had actually been in the office the day the accident report was filled in was to give in his doctors certificate for another week, which he gave to HER. Both the appeal manager and the CWU said that her assumption had been reasonable. The CWU basically bought the managements lies, hook,line and sinker. The union rep who represented my partner at his stage 3 handled things really badly and I can't help but feel that there's also a certain amount of backside covering involved in the CWUs decision not to represent my partner.
The CWU are letting the RM walk all over their members by not fighting for their own agreements to be adhered to and when that starts happening it raises the obvious question...just what are the CWU for ?
That bit about warning that absences from accidents being counted is I think ? - more to do with accidents being the postperson's fault - i.e. somebody gets bitten by a dog & and the DOM asks whether the postie had a high - viz vest on - I doubt if " Fido " was particularly bothered
but ! - the other one's are " it's your fault as you didn't have RM shoes on or " You've signed this form after a Health & Safety briefing that you've understood this and that so you're on your own or just plain tough if anything thing happens ".
I have seen professional claimers in another service and RM , who shall we say are not always that upset about accidents and the time off they get - it sounds if RM are trying to clamp down on them - they are very much in the minority though - I can understand the concept of responsibility re H&S Act 1974 -
but the recurring problem is that RM are not acting within the spirit of all these CWU/RM agreements re RMAP , AOD's , Conduct Code etc
The other thing that RM try is " negligence ' on Disability Discrimination Cases as a " wriggle out " - I can understand RM if it's alkies and druggies that have self - inflicted problems but many people have health problems that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemies .
The old school RM used to give people enough rope to hang themselves - you could have Hayes & Ward in the Office or speaking in a Tribunal for you - but it wouldn't make any difference - and matters usually stayed within the PO , maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way ?
-
so it's not necessarily always a case of getting the guilty off
Let's just say RM are being a bit ? sharp ? and sound if they are splitting hairs as a wriggle out - that other manager knows once the RM machine kicks in , it's very difficult to stop - it does sound vindictive
and that manager knows that RM will close ranks and protect him - the problem with some of the CWU , it's just playing games and petty politics than representing your members .
the point of "discipline" is to make sure people don't do things again - with a robust '/ ulitarian / macho style - call it what you will ! style - " discipline will be used to deter "troublemakers "- it
seems in this case it's to settle petty vendettas - unprofessional ?
that case of yours should have gone further up the CWU food chain - it's a common fault - the union sitting on things - in a situation like yours - it's a too serious matter to be " sat on "
I have seen cases in another service when things were badly handled by
both the Union & Management , it's resulted in a dismissal , the Union have won the tribunal , then management have appealed and the union suspect it's deliberate trench warfare as all this litigation is expensive and can weaken the union financially .
As for apparent paranoia or conspiracy theories as has been suggested - usually it's more likely that RM managers tend to be that way out , due to the inherent mistrust that exists - i.e. they are likely to scared of somebody getting something over on 'the system" - that's why everything from breathing onwards has or had to go through the Union as neither side trust each other at all . The bonus and budget / cost cutting pressure with L&C has made it a lot worse as you'd think some managers were paying sick pay out of their own pockets .
You will get a " it's all RM's fault " element but prior to L&C , some managers just didn't do responsibility full stop - nowadays it's a negative blame culture and a "it's all your fault" often used in a subtle bullying / verbal bullying way to deter people pushing things or in the vain hope that people will be daft and naive enough to believe all that rubbish and not give RM any problems MURDERERS. Need to dispose of a body? Simply parcel it up and post it to yourself via DHL. You will never see it again.
Dear Faithfully...so you have suused the unions out---help for some and not others.And then