Is this legal ?????

[wolfie citizen smith]

the rumour mill has been working overtime and I believe I'm right when trying to explain my view, can anyone clarify ?

At our unit it has been suggested that Royal Mail require duties due to van sharing, however the heads required are for VR but (and here is the sticking point) if Royal Mail don't get the required VR's then they WILL go for compulsory redundencies.

Now then my point is that if postman (a) was on walk (a) and postman (b) was on walk (b) but Royal Mail has merged walk (a) with walk (b) then postman (a) has now as far as Royal Mail are concerned been made compulsory redundent, because there is no work now within the unit for postman (a). However I believe that compulsory redundencies can only legally be so if the work/job postman (a) done does not exist anymore. However the streets postman (a) was doing STILL exists, it has just been tranfered.
My belief of compusory redundencie is that if Driver (a) was collecting mail from say (woolworths) and that firm closes down then driver (a) could be made by Royal Mail compulsory redundent.

All views are more than welcome brothers and sisters

[POSTMAN]

Are managers(c) along with manager(u) and the lino (n) and the agm (t) involved with (s)

[wolfie citizen smith]

its funny but you understand what I mean. ?

[AndyK]

The redundancy would could from the business (y) not an individual (x) this could be any business unit (y+o)

[wolfie citizen smith]

so compulsory redundencies can be given by the business even though the streets are stil there, which suggests that the business can pick and choose which walks to merge to maximise what sort of employee they can remove from the business under compulsory redundencie.
Would that not then be deemed as unfair dismissal on the grounds of sellectionship ?

[stokes11eg]

the rumour mill has been working overtime and I believe I'm right when trying to explain my view, can anyone clarify ?

At our unit it has been suggested that Royal Mail require duties due to van sharing, however the heads required are for VR but (and here is the sticking point) if Royal Mail don't get the required VR's then they WILL go for compulsory redundencies.

Now then my point is that if postman (a) was on walk (a) and postman (b) was on walk (b) but Royal Mail has merged walk (a) with walk (b) then postman (a) has now as far as Royal Mail are concerned been made compulsory redundent, because there is no work now within the unit for postman (a). However I believe that compulsory redundencies can only legally be so if the work/job postman (a) done does not exist anymore. However the streets postman (a) was doing STILL exists, it has just been tranfered.
My belief of compusory redundencie is that if Driver (a) was collecting mail from say (woolworths) and that firm closes down then driver (a) could be made by Royal Mail compulsory redundent.

All views are more than welcome brothers and sisters

When S.D.D. came in my walk was absorbed in to others. all round, my 'staus' was reduced, back to reserve and general run around, they also tried to take my long weekends from me.
I fought back on the grounds their behaviour was 'detrimental ' and won.

[not me]

so compulsory redundencies can be given by the business even though the streets are stil there, which suggests that the business can pick and choose which walks to merge to maximise what sort of employee they can remove from the business under compulsory redundencie.
Would that not then be deemed as unfair dismissal on the grounds of sellectionship ?

if all the duties are being changed ot create new duties then you should have a resign within the office along with this
so they couldnt choose who would be getting VR or CR

[wolfie citizen smith]

so compulsory redundencies can be given by the business even though the streets are stil there, which suggests that the business can pick and choose which walks to merge to maximise what sort of employee they can remove from the business under compulsory redundencie.
Would that not then be deemed as unfair dismissal on the grounds of sellectionship ?

if all the duties are being changed ot create new duties then you should have a resign within the office along with this
so they couldnt choose who would be getting VR or CR

I perfectley agree