Watford postal workers could strike in support of suspended

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4 ... ed_worker/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Postal workers in Watford could vote to strike in retaliation against the suspension of a colleague.

Bob Kennedy, a health and safety officer at the Royal Mail sorting office in Ascot Road, was today suspended on full pay for “doing his job”, according to workmates.

As a result, the Communication Workers' Union will host an “emergency” committee meeting tomorrow afternoon to discuss the issue, where it may be decided to ballot members on industrial action.

A source inside the depot said: “He's been suspended for doing his job. He's raising issues where they [management] are not following health and safety. It's an attack on the CWU.”

Trevor Flowers, communications officer for the CWU branch, said: “Obviously he's a prime target as far as we're concerned because he keeps them in order. As far as they're concerned he's a thorn in their side. It's something we cannot have as a union on a rep.”

Mr Flowers said balloting workers for strike action would be “one of the options”, but that the situation would become clearer after the meeting tomorrow.

A Royal Mail representative said: "We are not able to comment on any individuals but we strictly follow guidelines and policies agreed with staff and unions in any disciplinary cases."

[johnsouthwales]

"We are not able to comment on any individuals but we strictly follow guidelines and policies agreed with staff and unions in any disciplinary cases."

if the meeting proves that royal mail were in the wrong, then the manager has to be disciplined for not following procedure, if he took it upon himself...

[brothermagrew]

Employment protection:
Employment law protects all employees from suffering any harm (detriment) because of any reasonable actions they take on health and safety grounds* . This applies regardless of their length of service. Employees, including H&S reps, should not suffer harm for instance by being victimised, denied a promotion or being dismissed because they:

Carry out or propose to carry out activities expected of them in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety.

Perform or propose to perform functions they have as union-appointed safety reps or H&S committee members.

Took part, or proposed to take part, in consultation with the employer under the H&S consultation regulations, or for taking part in an election under that law.

Bring to their employer's attention by reasonable means a concern about circumstances at work which they reasonably believe are harmful, or potentially harmful to health and safety.

Reasonably believe a situation to be of serious and imminent danger and because they could not reasonably be expected to avert it, they leave or propose to leave the workplace or any dangerous part of it, or if they refuse to return while the danger continues.

Reasonably believe a situation to be of serious and imminent danger, and take or propose to take appropriate steps to protect themselves and others. This is to be judged by reference to all the circumstances including knowledge, facilities and advice available at the time.

Made a disclosure that the H&S of any individual has been, is being, or is likely to be, endangered (the disclosure must be made in good faith and to the employer or in some circumstances to another appropriate person).

Claims for unlawful detriment or unfair dismissal in these circumstances can be brought to an Employment Tribunal. There are strict time limits for presenting claims.

[Yahoorsur]

A source inside the depot said: “He's been suspended for doing his job. He's raising issues where they [management] are not following health and safety.

Given the e mails about Watford and the breaches of Health and Safety,,a urgent investigation seems to be in order from the H.S.E,can any Watford posties shed any light on this affair?

[fatherchristmas]

sorry cant help on the details, but needless to say they waited to suspend him after us delivery boys and girls had left. This is just another attack on the watford members over the last 3 years its been hell. Even had chap from CWU hq to carry out joint review of IR problems. looks like a fun day tomorrow

[Yahoorsur]

Just having a think about brothermagrews post,surely Royal Mail would not in any circumstance be so stupid as to take on a H and S rep without being sure of their ground? the ramifications of this if true are quite staggering,think I will follow this with a great deal of interst and post on some other sites.

[brothermagrew]

A classic example and case of managerial injustice perpetrated against a trade union health and safety rep, which finally ended up at an Employment Tribunal which the forum brothers and sisters should, I would suggest humbly read, can be viewed at the following link. Comes in 8 parts.

L Holden -v- ConnexSE

'I must remind you that you swore on the bible,'
Tribunal chairman to Connex manager.

'Mr Skilton, are you making this up as you're going along?'
Tribunal Chairman to Connex manager.

'I'm beginning to lose my patience with Mr Skilton,'
Tribunal chairman to Connex manager.

YOU HAVE GOT TO READ IT TO BELIEVE IT........


http://www.csenews.net/fulldecision.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Yahoorsur]

YIKES!!!!!
) Mr Walker gave evidence to the Tribunal for the Respondents, he is an ASLEF Trade Union member originally a train driver but now works full time on trade union duties.
(92) Mr Walker is a "company man", he did not wish to confront the Respondents either as a trade union representative - or in his personal capacity. Mr Walker did not take up the Applicant's case as he should have done, he became part of the Respondent's campaign against the Applicant because of what the Applicant had done.


Christ on a bike,with union reps like that you dont need management giving you grief

[brothermagrew]

I liked this wee bit in particular:


There were long periods of silence. Managers would read out their witness statements. They would then be lead through the various events where it would often be shown that their versions were at odds with the truth. So how should they answer? By accepting the events as they unfurled would show the witness statement to be untrue. But by rejecting the sequence of events as presented, with strong evidential back-up, this would result in a denial so out of step with the facts that they would never be believed. The managers clearly weren't sure how to answer. The silences were deafening.

When faced with clear, direct, questions, Connex managers often had no choice but to tell the truth. One manager, John Thompson, when asked if he allowed health and safety regulations to be carried out (1977 Safety Reps' Regulations in this case), had to answer 'Er, no.' Health and safety laws do not apply to Connex it would seem.

[DGP1]

Health and safety laws do not apply to Connex it would seem.

Now just replace Connex with Royal Mail

[norbert]

YIKES!!!!!
) Mr Walker gave evidence to the Tribunal for the Respondents, he is an ASLEF Trade Union member originally a train driver but now works full time on trade union duties.
(92) Mr Walker is a "company man", he did not wish to confront the Respondents either as a trade union representative - or in his personal capacity. Mr Walker did not take up the Applicant's case as he should have done, he became part of the Respondent's campaign against the Applicant because of what the Applicant had done.


Christ on a bike,with union reps like that you dont need management giving you grief

I do know quite a few railway lads , with RM it's just the CWU v the CMA on the quiet i.e . it can be yes :lfo , three bags full :lfo but the reality is a rep v the rep in a suit . With the railway it's ASLEF for the drivers , RMT for most staff formerly it was the NUR , then they joined with Sam McCluskys seamen's union - the NUS had been smashed by Lord Sterling & Thatcher in the 80's , then there's the moderate union TSSA , there's the official version as to what TSSA stands for and quite a few other versions ! , there is also one breakaway new union that came out of the ASLEF " bonding bar - BQ " and the punch up amongst the ASLEF leaders which was all over the papers , many of the Train Companies don't recognize them .

There are some RMT drivers , I've been told first hand stories about RMT supervisors being threatened and being forced to join TSSA , it goes back to the Thatcherite / Major era of "reds under the bed " & " the enemy within " .

Posters are quite absolutely right to say there are broad or vague similarities to RM . CONNEX were a absolutely dreadful company , they lost their franchisee and it had to go back to state run but B- Liar had that stopped as it was " too old Labour " - the subsidy went down to a fifth , a mate of mine went through 2 years of trench warfare as a rep or on the branch , many railway lads say RM's system is vicious whilst saying the railway is brutal & they certainly can " read " RM politics like a open book .

Not being funny , as bad as those linos and DUM's / AM's from hell are , the railway lads CAN be more isolated

The Association of Train Operating Companies really went for ASLEF , what people have to remember is that a lot of these managers were from the bus industry which was deregulated in 1984 and with all respect to the T&G , RMT & ASLEF are a different kettle of fish . Then there's a lot of city people in charge at senior level , Thatcherite to the bone , RM has certainly been going that way for a while though .

The irony is that the Tories fragmented the industry to neutralize ASLEF but it just means people can up sticks and work for another company and earn wages which were unheard of in BR days it's backfired on them ,the BR culture was a bit like the RM culture with low wages and loads of O/T to make up the wages

There is bad blood going back years to the union baron days of the 70's between the old NUR & ASLEF . There will be the PO people who've worked on the stations / TPO'S / PCD's etc who know the railway lads and vice versa . Relations aren't as bad as they used to be , but there is flare ups over poaching members .

I can well believe the company man wouldn't give evidence or swap sides , some are looking for promotion to management as they'll know the job , it does happen a bit with RM but more often in Processing and certainly distribution , many have a straight choice be neutralized or be victimized .
That company man will be on a easy number , no trains to drive , a salary and just do duties and rosters in the Office , bit like sending a RM rep into a writing room and/ or making him Resources Manager in a RDC / APC ?

The other thing is that the RMT & possibly ASLEF are very strong and organized in London but it means that the worst managers are sent there to sort the union out . Bit of targeting
going on with RM , i.e. Burslem , Bristol , Liverpool , parts of West Scotland

The other thing is the RMT have got out of the Labour Party and gone to the left , I suppose it would be like making Billy Hayes face a vote of no confidence and get a far left GS in , some of the lads felt sold down the river by the old " corrupt right " .

" Uncle Bob " does not p*** about ! and that's from people who are not exactly fans .

The railway lads view is that the CWU rank and file are demanding of the Union and the leadership of it is difficult - don't shoot the messenger please

i hope this of interest or informative ?

I'm told these are the important sites
http://www.rmt.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aslef.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.tssa.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Their equivalent of RMC - apparently ! it's not that good
http://railchat.co.uk/phpBB2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kay_thebigbird]

A classic example and case of managerial injustice perpetrated against a trade union health and safety rep, which finally ended up at an Employment Tribunal which the forum brothers and sisters should, I would suggest humbly read, can be viewed at the following link. Comes in 8 parts.

L Holden -v- ConnexSE

'I must remind you that you swore on the bible,'
Tribunal chairman to Connex manager.

'Mr Skilton, are you making this up as you're going along?'
Tribunal Chairman to Connex manager.

'I'm beginning to lose my patience with Mr Skilton,'
Tribunal chairman to Connex manager.

YOU HAVE GOT TO READ IT TO BELIEVE IT........


http://www.csenews.net/fulldecision.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just read almost all of the evidence & findings, what a victory do you know how much compensation this chap had or is it hush, hush.

[johnsouthwales]

gawd time has flown innit.. i remember the are you making it up as you go along after ladbroke grove and connex..

i dont think laurie holden had much of a pay out.. think it was around 50k but don't quote me on that

[kay_thebigbird]

gawd time has flown innit.. i remember the are you making it up as you go along after ladbroke grove and connex..

i dont think laurie holden had much of a pay out.. think it was around 50k but don't quote me on that

50k not much of a payout you must be rich if you think 50k is not alot.

[johnsouthwales]

hell no... 50k is loads of money... wouldnt mind some of that.

what i was meaning 50k wasnt much in comparison for the overall hassle and the scandal as a whole picture. pity tribunals could't award damages on top of loss of earnings