Employment Tribunal Cases - Outcome Oct 2006 - Sep 2009

[brothermagrew]

With regards to the outcome of Employment Tribunal cases between the period October 2006 - September 2009 the following stats should be noted:

Upheld in Royal Mails favour = 1264
Upheld in Claimants favour = 75
Cases settled = 459

Further breakdown by period:

Outcome of Employment Tribunal Cases Oct 2006 Sep 2009.doc

[fishtank]

Ouch.

[chunk]

Not as bad as it looks.
RM has a policy of paying off cases they think may go against them.
459 settled is about 1 in 3
Although some cases will be dropped by the claimant .

[fishtank]

Not as bad as it looks.
RM has a policy of paying off cases they think may go against them.
459 settled is about 1 in 3
Although some cases will be dropped by the claimant .

1 in 4 chunk.

[chunk]

Not as bad as it looks.
RM has a policy of paying off cases they think may go against them.
459 settled is about 1 in 3
Although some cases will be dropped by the claimant .

1 in 4 chunk.

Ill give you that i should have added the 459 and the 75 before i divided.

3.91

[chunk]

Theres got to be more to these skewed figures.

If you believe in our tribunal system and its ability to make right decisions most of the time
then that implies that too many of these cases should never have been pursued.
suggests
that they were perhaps wrongly advised they had a strong cases when they didn't.


If on the other hand we take a view that many deserved a victory that did not get one.
was it a result of poor representation, the amount of resources at RM disposal
or stonewalling /collusion of management.

I think its a combination its been far to easy to pursue grievances that has led to our union to waste our subs on unwinnable cases.
Being more selective would have better helped those more deserving cases.

I could quote examples but that would pinpoint my location.

[stokes11eg]

Theres got to be more to these skewed figures.

If you believe in our tribunal system and its ability to make right decisions most of the time
then that implies that too many of these cases should never have been pursued.
suggests
that they were perhaps wrongly advised they had a strong cases when they didn't.


If on the other hand we take a view that many deserved a victory that did not get one.
was it a result of poor representation, the amount of resources at RM disposal
or stonewalling /collusion of management.

I think its a combination its been far to easy to pursue grievances that has led to our union to waste our subs on unwinnable cases.
Being more selective would have better helped those more deserving cases. Yes, you are so right in what you say.some people who quite frankly deserve to lose their jobs, only get representation dur to their 'closeness' to the rep'
whilst others who have a far stronger, legal and moral right to be represented are ignored or are not best served by the Union.But no matter, if the figure is nearer to one in four being won, and taking into account the number of staff. it makes R/M look like the Employers from hell!

I could quote examples but that would pinpoint my location.

[hantsman]

With regards to the outcome of Employment Tribunal cases between the period October 2006 - September 2009 the following stats should be noted:

Upheld in Royal Mails favour = 1264
Upheld in Claimants favour = 75
Cases settled = 459

Further breakdown by period:

Outcome of Employment Tribunal Cases Oct 2006 Sep 2009.doc

Very interesting facts, now where did you get this from Brother?

[brothermagrew]

With regards to the outcome of Employment Tribunal cases between the period October 2006 - September 2009 the following stats should be noted:

Upheld in Royal Mails favour = 1264
Upheld in Claimants favour = 75
Cases settled = 459

Further breakdown by period:

Outcome of Employment Tribunal Cases Oct 2006 Sep 2009.doc

Very interesting facts, now where did you get this from Brother?

From part of one of the many FOI Requests (involving Royal Mail) that I have been reading of late

[norbert]

they don't have to work on the reasonable / fair employer basis any more , Tribunals are dealing with matters on a very narrow basis , they have to go on points of law , previous cases .

RM can stitch someone up and get it upheld as long as they've followed their own procedure and the i's are dotted & t's crossed . They've also got considerable resources like heavyweight lawyers like Eversheds , if necessary they can make sh** shine / something bent look straight . They'll also appeal on vague / obscure / oblique points of law too , they can afford it , the CWU / Staff can't .


I think ? it goes back to New Labour expressing concerns about too many tribunals costing business too much and apparently there was too many weak cases . New Labour wanted to appear more business friendly , the politicians pushing for it were right wingers like Blair and " Patronising " Pat Hewitt .

The concession or compromise when turncoat Alan Johnson was Employment Minister was that ACAS would step into the breach and work their " magic " , the reality is that they are as much use as a chocolate fireguard .