Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

[BELIAL]

Your a lucky boy then aint you brother! Cause my office is sh*t heavy and run on O/T and it seems most of the others on RMC are the same, but what the HAYE we would all like to live in paradise and as long as you are OK with you "local agreement" then the rest of us must be the same! FFS.

He is a lucky boy and for "a resident political officer" that was a curiously apolitical post

[planx]

Bigger offices will be bringing work back. Hope it's enough to get RM round the table.
Smaller offices will find it harder. Many smaller offices got away with making zero savings, so with mail volumes falling (letters at least) the staffing will be getting closer in these offices to being right.

Mail Centers will be where RM will be after greater savings.

Mail Centers are most at risk (in my view) from the 30% sell off.

And yeah wranglred I've only been here a month but negativity is something I see in the wider society also, so that's why it bothers me....whatever happened to the hippy dream?? Not that I'm that old.....my grandad told me all about it. Glad to see your post praising Peterborough rep, can't be the only good one in your branch though, can he?

I've been lucky, apart from dodging some stage warnings I've not needed the services of my rep(s). But those few times I'm glad I had a rep with me. It seems to me to be a (largely) thankless job & not one I'd do, and I thank everyone who gives it a go. All you reps on here, you're heroes and I for one thank you all. Even the useless ones, because they inspire others to step forward to put things right.

[wranglered]

Steve Butts I think has done his job well in this case and so I take that as a real positive that local people can support one another.

Friend of yours is he? Did he pay for the breakfast or was it the members?

[andy2007]

Steve Butts I think has done his job well in this case and so I take that as a real positive that local people can support one another.

Friend of yours is he? Did he pay for the breakfast or was it the members?

Does it matter, who paid the bill?
It's normal for these things to be paid for by the Union. The important thing is what he did, not who paid.

At least he had the decency to come on here, explain himself, and pay attention to what we said to him. That's a damn sight more than some would do in that situation. We are gradually getting more senior Union Reps coming on here, and discussing things with us. But there are still some (and one in particular), who just attack us for speaking our minds. When he's at meetings, and refuses to join the debate. I won't name names (and I'd appreciate it if you didn't either), but I'm sure you know who I'm referring to.

[norbert]

Steve Butts I think has done his job well in this case and so I take that as a real positive that local people can support one another.

Friend of yours is he? Did he pay for the breakfast or was it the members?

Does it matter, who paid the bill?
It's normal for these things to be paid for by the Union. The important thing is what he did, not who paid.

At least he had the decency to come on here, explain himself, and pay attention to what we said to him. That's a damn sight more than some would do in that situation. We are gradually getting more senior Union Reps coming on here, and discussing things with us. But there are still some (and one in particular), who just attack us for speaking our minds. When he's at meetings, and refuses to join the debate. I won't name names (and I'd appreciate it if you didn't either), but I'm sure you know who I'm referring to.

Its a shame about the some and "One" member because at least some of the problems in the CWU could be down to perceptions and lack of communication and RMC goes a very long way in communicating with ALL.

It does have to be considered as to who the real villain is in this episode i.e . RM NORMALLY discounting AOD 's , the bullying tactics that a few rogue AM's have been using to bully people out of reporting AOD's , who precisely these rogue managers are trying to impress , how they take the rulebook for a joyride , threatening to take the union to EAT on the flimsiest of grounds - which may create a culture of fear within CWU HQ who may be more used to a more relatively benign past style of management

[steve b]

Comrades,
Through this case I’ve learnt that employment tribunal are not straightforward as “some may think”. The difficulty is case law – particularly in respect to dismissals under the terms of the RM Attendance Procedure. The case law that works against us in our industry, for those that may be interested is:-
• Wilson vs. Post Office
• Royal Mail vs. Spence
Then there is still the standard test of reasonableness to combat namely, BHS Ltd vs. Burchell.
I don’t profess to be any kind of expert, but the more I’ve got to understand the workings of employment law, which really for me indicates that the social balance is more heavily weighted in favour of business, rather than the worker. Whilst this remains the position, then there can be no real social justice, just the occasional away victory, like the one reported in this story.

This is the real debate, not who paid for breakfast...........

[Big Daz]

Breakfast?

That be a bowl of Alpen at 5am.

[DGP1]

A glass of pure pineapple juice and a handful of painkillers for breakfast every morning but I didn't realise that I could get my rep. to buy it for me

Anyway, back to the thread, I think that the issue that has been raised was the lack of support from CWU legal team which is something that we expect after we've paid our dues for years.

[Big Daz]

Can conference change policy if a motion was submitted?

[DGP1]

Can conference change policy if a motion was submitted?

My motions are normally in the evening

[johnsouthwales]

the QC obviously favoured the case to be awarded against rm, so that in effect was not a case of weighing up on a employer/employee basis. QC awarded the employyee win because the QC knew that the employer was wrong. the representing solicitor knew something was wrong, the employee knew something was wrong.. and the only party that did not share this view was cwu.. unfortunately, the legal team are part of cwu so it cannot be brought around as two seperate identities. "legal team" are cwu, and this is the problem. the legal team cast a shadow on the cwu as a whole.

though representations were made 'behind or beside the scenes', the main focus is on the tribunal itself, and the precedents left.....

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Comrades,
Through this case I’ve learnt that employment tribunal are not straightforward as “some may think”. The difficulty is case law – particularly in respect to dismissals under the terms of the RM Attendance Procedure. The case law that works against us in our industry, for those that may be interested is:-
• Wilson vs. Post Office
• Royal Mail vs. Spence
Then there is still the standard test of reasonableness to combat namely, BHS Ltd vs. Burchell.
I don’t profess to be any kind of expert, but the more I’ve got to understand the workings of employment law, which really for me indicates that the social balance is more heavily weighted in favour of business, rather than the worker. Whilst this remains the position, then there can be no real social justice, just the occasional away victory, like the one reported in this story.

This is the real debate, not who paid for breakfast...........

Wilson v Post Office - http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfree-re ... 0ir834.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[planx]

Bigger offices will be bringing work back. Hope it's enough to get RM round the table.
Smaller offices will find it harder. Many smaller offices got away with making zero savings, so with mail volumes falling (letters at least) the staffing will be getting closer in these offices to being right.

Mail Centers will be where RM will be after greater savings.

Mail Centers are most at risk (in my view) from the 30% sell off.

And yeah wranglred I've only been here a month but negativity is something I see in the wider society also, so that's why it bothers me....whatever happened to the hippy dream?? Not that I'm that old.....my grandad told me all about it. Glad to see your post praising Peterborough rep, can't be the only good one in your branch though, can he?

I've been lucky, apart from dodging some stage warnings I've not needed the services of my rep(s). But those few times I'm glad I had a rep with me. It seems to me to be a (largely) thankless job & not one I'd do, and I thank everyone who gives it a go. All you reps on here, you're heroes and I for one thank you all. Even the useless ones, because they inspire others to step forward to put things right.

Nice post planxbut something dont seem right!

Quote 1.
]Anyone know when this is to be heard?
Should be a greater campaign to get support for this edm.

I want my pension to be the final salary version we currently have when I get to 60 / 65 not some crappy (don't)CARE scheme. (Thats Nice!)

Quote 2.
Totally agree with you Big Daz. members get the same representation (legal advise etc) weather they're full-time or part-time. I've had some excellent legal advise which cost me nothing more than my union subs. (Really? "I've been lucky, apart from dodging some stage warnings" (You get LEGAL ADVICE for stage warnings then do you?)

I've some concerns about things being missed at HQ level, such as why have we not been ballotted for strike action over the imposed care scheme we're all on from April next year. (So your not negative one bit then. LOL.)

Quote 3.
My branch are always waiting for HQ to return audited accounts.
Most Branches have their AGMs by the end of March. In my experience HQ never get the accounts back to branches in time.

Anyone else have this problem (Still not negative then little brother!)

Quote 4.
Isn't it far far better to concentrate on the positive?
Lets all hear more of the rep that stood not for their own personal agenda, but stands for their members.

They are out there, I know some of them. (WOW your being positive at last then! LOL.)

Keep banging on about the corrupt, the unjust, the lazy and the ones who are more interested in their own personal gain does no one any good. ( Not doing a bad job yourself little brother are you?)

Lets heap praise on those that deserve it.
Negativity only serves to destroy. We need to get positive.
We need to know that we have reps, even if it's only at local level, that will fight our corner. (Nice.)

I'm sick to death of the moaners. I'm sick to death of those that, through their own bitterness, seek to destroy the good intentions of others.

So, lets NOT hear more negativity. (FFS.LOL.)

What we should be concentrating on with the topic of this thread is that the member won the day.

Yes HQ should have fought the members corner.
But at least the member got local support and won the day.
Would they have won without the support of the local Union?
Who knows!

The CWU is not without fault. But no person or organisation is without fault. But we're all a damn sight better off with the CWU than we would be without it.


Quote 5.
Bigger offices will be bringing work back. Hope it's enough to get RM round the table.
Smaller offices will find it harder. Many smaller offices got away with making zero savings, so with mail volumes falling (letters at least) the staffing will be getting closer in these offices to being right.

Mail Centers will be where RM will be after greater savings.

Mail Centers are most at risk (in my view) from the 30% sell off.

And yeah wranglred I've only been here a month but negativity is something I see in the wider society also, so that's why it bothers me....whatever happened to the hippy dream?? Not that I'm that old.....my grandad told me all about it. Glad to see your post praising Peterborough rep, can't be the only good one in your branch though, can he?

I've been lucky, apart from dodging some stage warnings I've not needed the services of my rep(s). But those few times I'm glad I had a rep with me. It seems to me to be a (largely) thankless job & not one I'd do, and I thank everyone who gives it a go. All you reps on here, you're heroes and I for one thank you all. Even the useless ones, because they inspire others to step forward to put things right.


Quote 6.
Good on London.

I love the idea that these strikes will gain impetus and spread through the country.

We need to know what's happening with such things as this years pay rise, next years change to our pensions.

We've just had National elections and the election addresses always say that this year we face the toughest year yet.
Worrying thing is that they are right. I reckon we need to have a more 'fighting' union. Negotiation is something RM is no longer interested in (or so it seems).

If we fight more perhaps we can convince RM to get back to negotiating. ( Yeah whatever!.)

Sorry, don't get ya. ?? is there a point or is the couple of largers blinding me? (If so I humbly appologise & hope I don't come across as an idiot)

Yup suppose I'm guilty of the odd moan n groan. Easier to moan I suppose. ;-]

I've used the legal helpline for some trouble outside of work, but that was help from union appointed solicitors rather than union itself. Very good advise & cost me nothing. Oh & the free will service also....highly recommend that to everyone, and you're never too young to have a will!

What I have found in my short time here is that there's some great info on here and in the main, from what little I've seen, it's a great talking shop. A great place to air your views and could be very useful in getting your views to many people. I'm totally willing to get shot down in flames if I talk utter rubbish (I've been know to do this often).

One question...is the leighton 'smiley' going to be replaced?

[brothermagrew]

Comrades,
Through this case I’ve learnt that employment tribunal are not straightforward as “some may think”. The difficulty is case law – particularly in respect to dismissals under the terms of the RM Attendance Procedure. The case law that works against us in our industry, for those that may be interested is:-
• Wilson vs. Post Office
• Royal Mail vs. Spence
Then there is still the standard test of reasonableness to combat namely, BHS Ltd vs. Burchell.
I don’t profess to be any kind of expert, but the more I’ve got to understand the workings of employment law, which really for me indicates that the social balance is more heavily weighted in favour of business, rather than the worker. Whilst this remains the position, then there can be no real social justice, just the occasional away victory, like the one reported in this story.

This is the real debate, not who paid for breakfast...........

The leading case in relation to dismissals for misconduct is BHS v Burchill 1978 IRLR 379 (EAT). In the Burchill case, the EAT set out the following principles:-

“What the tribunal have to decide every time is, broadly expressed, whether the employer who discharged the employee on the ground of the misconduct in question ………..entertained a reasonable suspicion amounting to a belief in the guilt of the employee of that misconduct at that time. ……………First of all, there must be established by the employer the fact of that belief……… Secondly, that the employer had …reasonable grounds for that belief. And thirdly……….that the employer………had carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in the circumstances of the case”.



Also for those on outdoor deliveries watch that you do not make any false claims as regards to D2D.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... 25_06.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Big Daz]

Well, for two weeks running mangement have failed to ensure door to doors were done on my day off.

As both weeks were bank holiday weeks Ive done 75% and claimed for 75% only.