Vacant duties

[fishtank]

These are the legal categories for discrimination.
Which one are you basing your case on?

gender
marriage or civil partnership
gender reassignment
pregnancy and maternity leave
sexual orientation
disability
race
colour
ethnic background
nationality
religion or belief
age

[mr d]

there is no a difference when you have so called senior men lording it over others saying how they are going to take there round if they want it and there is nothing you can do about it! its all a form of bullying,discrimination,age discimination (using date of birth).and what gives people the right to decide what job they do on a day to day basis,were called emplyees not employers.i have over 10 years in this business so that is not why i am saying anything,but whats right is right you cant just make rules up as you go along,oh yes and another thing holidays are allocated on "seniorority" also!!! its a nonsence.

[sheff postie]

section 14 paragraph 23 of the equality act say's

It may still be lawful for an employer to use length of service above 5 yrs to increase a benefit provided they can prove it fulfills a business need

These include

Rewarding higher levels of experience
Encouraging loyalty
Increasing or maintaining the motivation of long serving staff

I think seniority does all of these if you can disprove in a court of law any of these then go for it fight for the new starters.

[mr d]

i think the key word there is "May"

[sheff postie]

Also seniority does not go on date of birth it goes on date of employment

E.G I'm 32 i have 15 years seniority
Bloke at work is 54 he has 5 years seniority

He is not being discriminated against due to his age RM are rewarding me for long service.

[fishtank]

All that RM would argue anyway is that all duties are timed as equal so there is no actual benefit,perceived or otherwise in assigning duties by seniority...case closed.
You work your hours basically.

[sheff postie]

Mrd you go and fight it in court then. I bet you a tenner you lose

[mr d]

no in the last re-pick in our office we had 2 with the same start date and so they used age as the decider i bought this up at the time to a senior union rep and he said thats how its decided!

[sheff postie]

Did the older man win?

I would have done it alphabeticely then blamed your mum and dad

[fishtank]

no in the last re-pick in our office we had 2 with the same start date and so they used age as the decider i bought this up at the time to a senior union rep and he said thats how its decided!

Date of birth is only the tie-breaker after any previous service and date of selection so your guy was mugged.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

it is discrimination i have already spoken to ACAS and had this confirmed,it only continues because no one rocks the boat

Well rock it then.

You disagree with it, you think/believe its illegal but the only other option you offer you admit won't work. Selection by skill and competency is always the preferred method but in a job where everyone has the same skill, and competency can't be measured fairly then seniority is the only viable factor. By the way selection by seniority is only illegal if its based on age, its not as far as I know illegal if based on length of service. After all I am 47 and have done just about 8 years at RM so I am low on the list, but a colleague who started at 19 and has done 20 years is ahead of me. Ergo no discrimination based on age and thats the clincher not length of service.

Although the scenario described below is not exactly the same it certainly shows that selection by length of service is not illegal as long as its not based exclusively on age:

This means that if the substantial reason for an
employment decision is not age but some other lawful factor, there is no direct discrimination.
For example, linking salary to seniority or selecting an employee for lay-off because of his or her
high salary is not direct age discrimination. Although these factors may have a greater impact on
older workers they are said to be analytically distinct from age, because a younger worker may
have worked for longer for the employer than an older but recently joined employee. So too, it has
been held that termination of employment close to the vesting age for retirement benefits in order
to save costs to the employer is not age discrimination. Nor is it age discrimination to dismiss
an employee because he or she is perceived to be over-qualified, or “has been around too long”,
unless the reason for that belief is the age of the employee.

Similar conclusions could be reached by UK tribunals applying a “but for” (causal) theory of
direct discrimination. The burden of proof will be on the claimant to prove facts from which
it may be presumed that age was the determinative cause , but it would then be open to the
respondent to show some other credible reason. The question is whether but for his or her age
the claimant would have been differently treated.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... 8CKQ&pli=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr d]

true colours of the union shining through again .as long as were alright stuff everyone else! when this company goes tits up who you going to blame management,the tories everyone but themselves.thats why no one has trust in the union anymore,and there was no action over the share cobblers..nuff said. oh and as for going to court i took royal mail to court on my own 2 years ago for breach of contract and won without the union because they wouldnt rock the boat and won £3,486.00.

[sheff postie]

Do it again then, Fight the good fight

I can't wait for the headlines

Postman wins land mark case against long serving loyal members of staff, now royal mail is filled with friends of managers who get the best jobs as soon as they enter the firm

[TrueBlueTerrier]

true colours of the union shining through again .as long as were alright stuff everyone else! when this company goes tits up who you going to blame management,the tories everyone but themselves.thats why no one has trust in the union anymore,and there was no action over the share cobblers..nuff said. oh and as for going to court i took royal mail to court on my own 2 years ago for breach of contract and won without the union because they wouldnt rock the boat and won £3,486.00.

Oh come on name calling in a debate is pointless, as is your argument "as long as were alright stuff everyone else" If seniority was withdrawn as a selection tool and they used something else it WOULD benefit me - there are part timers who have been there longer than me, have been on more stages than me and some have even had formal warnings. However despite my lack of seniority I still believe that its a lot fairer in a job where everyone has the same skill requirements, and all are expected to do the same work and hours.

There is also an argument that senior management have accepted that seniority is fair and the best choice otherwise they would have removed it from Royal Mail a long time ago. Therefore your argument that Management should make the decision has been fulfilled.

By the way my extract has nothing to do with a Union stance, check the link its a legal opinion not a Union position.

[DGP1]

My God, I thought I moaned a lot.................................I've been stuck as a reserves since I started RM 9 years ago, it's my fault for being good at doing lots of different duties so should I take RM to court too and have someone else kicked off their duty so I can have it because I'm better at it than him???