ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
Sackings at Watford?
-
krooserman1802
- Posts: 84
- Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 19:20
- Location: Enfield
I think they could have gone to Tribunal on a unlawful deduction of pay, but that would take ages. I think RM are saying that due to the fact that these members are refusing to use their vehicles now, when they have been using them before is unofficial Industrial action, which in relaity it is. Maybe RM thought by making the move on these members it would spark a walk out, just shows how disciplined we are...
-
strangler
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 07 Jun 2007, 15:43
We`ve heard elsewhere on here that you`re not supposed to use your car and can get done for it.krooserman1802 wrote:I think they could have gone to Tribunal on a unlawful deduction of pay, but that would take ages. I think RM are saying that due to the fact that these members are refusing to use their vehicles now, when they have been using them before is unofficial Industrial action, which in relaity it is. Maybe RM thought by making the move on these members it would spark a walk out, just shows how disciplined we are...
Are you saying that if you`ve been doing something you shouldn`t, then choose not to do it, you can get done also?
Give me strength, talk about a no win situation!! Clarification is needed on this. Anyone?
-
POSTMAN
- SITE ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 32773
- Joined: 07 Aug 2006, 03:19
- Gender: Male
They will try it on.strangler wrote:We`ve heard elsewhere on here that you`re not supposed to use your car and can get done for it.krooserman1802 wrote:I think they could have gone to Tribunal on a unlawful deduction of pay, but that would take ages. I think RM are saying that due to the fact that these members are refusing to use their vehicles now, when they have been using them before is unofficial Industrial action, which in relaity it is. Maybe RM thought by making the move on these members it would spark a walk out, just shows how disciplined we are...
Are you saying that if you`ve been doing something you shouldn`t, then choose not to do it, you can get done also?
Give me strength, talk about a no win situation!! Clarification is needed on this. Anyone?
If you don't wanna use your car that's the end of it,it is NOT UNOFFICIAL IA!!
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/forum/vi ... php?t=1685
You are within your rights,if you so wish to:(Which IS NOT Industrial Action.)
Start at your proper start time:You can not be forced to come in early.
Take your allocated meal breaks:You have the right to take all of your break before you go out on delivery.
Weigh your bags:This is a H&S issue and the bag weights should be on/near your signing on sheet.
Not use your car:You do not have to use your car EVEN if you have signed their declaration form.
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been.
My BFF Clash
The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been.
My BFF Clash
The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
-
krooserman1802
- Posts: 84
- Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 19:20
- Location: Enfield
I think you will find that if there is a collective action it can be deemed as industrial action the same way a work to rule without a ballot is unofficial indsutrial action. What you have to bear in mind is that this employer will do all it can to show that if there is a collective action whether it is not using the car or coming in ealry or whatever, if you have been willing to do that prior and 40 of you decide on a specific day not to do that anymore, the employer will argue that unofficial action is being taken and they would most probably win it...the law is an ass..
More to the point, why is it only now people have decided to stop using their cars and breaking off, shouldn't this policy have been adopted by our members years ago. The issue is here is that we have dropped ourselves in the quagmire of Industrial laws and regs by our own refusal to carry out the job properly.
More to the point, why is it only now people have decided to stop using their cars and breaking off, shouldn't this policy have been adopted by our members years ago. The issue is here is that we have dropped ourselves in the quagmire of Industrial laws and regs by our own refusal to carry out the job properly.
-
axeman
- Posts: 1733
- Joined: 12 Jun 2007, 17:57
you cannot be forced into using your car wether you have used it in the past no lawyer would ever go to and seek an injunction on that bassis lets make that straight, and if everyone does stop it must be veiwed on an individual bassis would not stand in a court of law as you have every right not to use your car you put fuel in you tax & insure it it's your property. Lets see the first case brought by r.m against a postie for refusing to use his private vehicle .......you will have a long wait
-
krooserman1802
- Posts: 84
- Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 19:20
- Location: Enfield
Please see just one of many cases highlighted here concerning a work to rule. Obviously it refers to ASLEF but the ruling made had significant impact upon "working to rule" and how it was seen as an Industrial action tool. If I am wrong someone please come on quick and correct it otherwise we are going to see our members getting in all sorts of trouble.
Secretary of State for Employment -v- ASLEF (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 455
1972
CA
Lord Denning MR, Buckley LJ Employment Casemap
1 Citers
Railway employees had been instructed by their unions to "work to rule" and more specifically to ban overtime, Sunday and rest day working. "Working to rule" meant giving an unreasonably literal construction to certain requirements of the railway rule book (such as satisfying oneself that the engine is in order) and ignoring others, such as the rule that one should make every effort to facilitate the working of the trains and prevent avoidable delay. And this course of conduct was pursued with the intention of bringing the system to a halt. The question was whether the conduct of the union amounted to industrial action. Held: The employees were not obliged to work on Sundays and rest days and refusing to do so, even for the purpose of being obstructive, was not a breach of contract. On the other hand, there was a limited obligation upon individual employees to work 9 hour shifts instead of 8 when rostered to do so and the ban on this overtime was a breach of contract. In addition, the "work to rule" was in breach of a reasonable construction of the rules. So the instructions involved breaches of contract by the employees. (Lord Denning MR) what made the action a breach of contract was the motive with which it was done: “If [the employee], with the others, takes steps wilfully to disrupt the undertaking, to produce chaos so that it will not run as it should, then each one who is a party to those steps is guilty of a breach of his contract. It is no answer for any one of them to say ‘I am only obeying the rule book,’ or ‘I am not bound to do more than a 40-hour week.’ That would be all very well if done in good faith without any wilful disruption of services; but what makes it wrong is the object with which it is done. There are many branches of our law when an act which would otherwise be lawful is rendered unlawful by the motive or object with which it is done. So here it is the wilful disruption which is the breach." (Buckley LJ) the "work to rule" involved “...breaches of an implied term to serve the employer faithfully within the requirements of the contract. It does not mean that the employer could require a man to do anything which lay outside his obligations under the contract, such as to work excess hours of work or to work an unsafe system of work or anything of that kind, but it does mean that within the terms of the contract the employee must serve the employer faithfully with a view to promoting those commercial interests for which he is employed" (Roskill LJ) “In legal theory, performance or non-performance of a contract does not depend upon goodwill or lack of goodwill; a contractual obligation can be properly performed albeit without goodwill, it can equally be broken notwithstanding honest if unavailing and well intentioned attempts at performance. But I venture to doubt whether the dichotomy between mere withdrawal of goodwill and the non-performance of a contract is in practice as complete as Mr Pain eloquently urged upon us. Purported performance accompanied by lack of goodwill may all too easily cross the borderline between lawful performance without breach and purported performance in breach either of some express or some implied term in the contract."
[/b]
Secretary of State for Employment -v- ASLEF (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 455
1972
CA
Lord Denning MR, Buckley LJ Employment Casemap
1 Citers
Railway employees had been instructed by their unions to "work to rule" and more specifically to ban overtime, Sunday and rest day working. "Working to rule" meant giving an unreasonably literal construction to certain requirements of the railway rule book (such as satisfying oneself that the engine is in order) and ignoring others, such as the rule that one should make every effort to facilitate the working of the trains and prevent avoidable delay. And this course of conduct was pursued with the intention of bringing the system to a halt. The question was whether the conduct of the union amounted to industrial action. Held: The employees were not obliged to work on Sundays and rest days and refusing to do so, even for the purpose of being obstructive, was not a breach of contract. On the other hand, there was a limited obligation upon individual employees to work 9 hour shifts instead of 8 when rostered to do so and the ban on this overtime was a breach of contract. In addition, the "work to rule" was in breach of a reasonable construction of the rules. So the instructions involved breaches of contract by the employees. (Lord Denning MR) what made the action a breach of contract was the motive with which it was done: “If [the employee], with the others, takes steps wilfully to disrupt the undertaking, to produce chaos so that it will not run as it should, then each one who is a party to those steps is guilty of a breach of his contract. It is no answer for any one of them to say ‘I am only obeying the rule book,’ or ‘I am not bound to do more than a 40-hour week.’ That would be all very well if done in good faith without any wilful disruption of services; but what makes it wrong is the object with which it is done. There are many branches of our law when an act which would otherwise be lawful is rendered unlawful by the motive or object with which it is done. So here it is the wilful disruption which is the breach." (Buckley LJ) the "work to rule" involved “...breaches of an implied term to serve the employer faithfully within the requirements of the contract. It does not mean that the employer could require a man to do anything which lay outside his obligations under the contract, such as to work excess hours of work or to work an unsafe system of work or anything of that kind, but it does mean that within the terms of the contract the employee must serve the employer faithfully with a view to promoting those commercial interests for which he is employed" (Roskill LJ) “In legal theory, performance or non-performance of a contract does not depend upon goodwill or lack of goodwill; a contractual obligation can be properly performed albeit without goodwill, it can equally be broken notwithstanding honest if unavailing and well intentioned attempts at performance. But I venture to doubt whether the dichotomy between mere withdrawal of goodwill and the non-performance of a contract is in practice as complete as Mr Pain eloquently urged upon us. Purported performance accompanied by lack of goodwill may all too easily cross the borderline between lawful performance without breach and purported performance in breach either of some express or some implied term in the contract."
[/b]
-
axeman
- Posts: 1733
- Joined: 12 Jun 2007, 17:57
-
TrueBlueTerrier
- FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 72700
- Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
- Gender: Male
- Location: On my couch
Also we are not being instructed to work to the rules by the CWU, it is completely voluntary and they are giving details on how to do it correctly just as any union should do.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
-
krooserman1802
- Posts: 84
- Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 19:20
- Location: Enfield
you are not working to rule just doing your job as per 318 a r.m document Quote by Axeman !!! yeah okay.....and thats why they stopped pay is it? Look, thats my take on it in respect of what my understanding of a work to rule is. Obviously everyone is not going to agree with this point, and I can understand why but you tell management you are working to your 318 and see how quick they tell you "as directed". Anyway not wanting to alienate myself from my fellow fighters I will say no more on this issue.....just remember...you heard it here first...lol
[/b]
[/b]-
fatherchristmas
- Posts: 200
- Joined: 04 Sep 2007, 16:15
watford sackings
perhaps i can clear some things up 1. we did stop using our cars at the start of this dispute and were told by the DIM that we would not be allowed to use them in the future. 2. We have now been told that we will NEVER be allowed to use cars again : 
3. The union has taking RM to High court i think today or tomorrow RE: stopping our pay after working a full day 
. Every single bully boy tactic has been deployed at watford to try and make us walk, even suspended local rep who was reinstated the following day as RM couldn't decide why they had suspended him. 
To all those who havn't joined the party yet come on in and have some fun!!! 
3. The union has taking RM to High court i think today or tomorrow RE: stopping our pay after working a full day . Every single bully boy tactic has been deployed at watford to try and make us walk, even suspended local rep who was reinstated the following day as RM couldn't decide why they had suspended him. To all those who havn't joined the party yet come on in and have some fun!!! -
dvbuk55
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 16650
- Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
- Gender: Male
It is an interesting legal point as to whether or not doing the job properly is working to rule. If there is a working instruction in any office which stipulates that you must use your car for a delivery then I have yet to see it. There is a liberal agreement that you MAY use your car and there was implicit instruction that deliveries should be organised WITHOUT the inclusion of private vehicles on SDD.
If I did a delivery and I used my car I'd stop it today.
Some years ago I did use my car but the situation was much different then and we got paid the equivalent bus fare, which if memory serves me was about 7 or 8 quid a week which at least paid for the petrol. That still applies today. The payment is given as BUS MONEY and not PETROL ALLOWANCE.
Royal Mail wouldn't dare raise the subject of using your private vehicle for fear of claims by the union for suitable recompense. Lets ask what allowance per mile our union officials claim - and stick in a similar request.
If I did a delivery and I used my car I'd stop it today.
Some years ago I did use my car but the situation was much different then and we got paid the equivalent bus fare, which if memory serves me was about 7 or 8 quid a week which at least paid for the petrol. That still applies today. The payment is given as BUS MONEY and not PETROL ALLOWANCE.
Royal Mail wouldn't dare raise the subject of using your private vehicle for fear of claims by the union for suitable recompense. Lets ask what allowance per mile our union officials claim - and stick in a similar request.
-
shelanda
- Posts: 422
- Joined: 19 May 2007, 20:44
- Location: south east
If you go anywhere officially for RM (doms too) you claim 40p per miledvbuk55 wrote:It is an interesting legal point as to whether or not doing the job properly is working to rule. If there is a working instruction in any office which stipulates that you must use your car for a delivery then I have yet to see it. There is a liberal agreement that you MAY use your car and there was implicit instruction that deliveries should be organised WITHOUT the inclusion of private vehicles on SDD.
If I did a delivery and I used my car I'd stop it today.
Some years ago I did use my car but the situation was much different then and we got paid the equivalent bus fare, which if memory serves me was about 7 or 8 quid a week which at least paid for the petrol. That still applies today. The payment is given as BUS MONEY and not PETROL ALLOWANCE.
Royal Mail wouldn't dare raise the subject of using your private vehicle for fear of claims by the union for suitable recompense. Lets ask what allowance per mile our union officials claim - and stick in a similar request.
-
Throgg
- Posts: 255
- Joined: 10 Aug 2007, 17:00
- Gender: Male
- Location: Glasgow
-
shelanda
- Posts: 422
- Joined: 19 May 2007, 20:44
- Location: south east
[quote="Throgg"]Since when did you ever get recompense for using your car? I used to use mine years ago and no money was ever given out for using your car.[/quote
Not talking about delivery. if you went on say first aid course or any other thing you are sent on including medicals etc. anything that you have to travel away from your office. cars on delivery should never be done!
Not talking about delivery. if you went on say first aid course or any other thing you are sent on including medicals etc. anything that you have to travel away from your office. cars on delivery should never be done!
-
dvbuk55
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 16650
- Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
- Gender: Male
Thanks Shelanda!
Thats a fair starting point for mileage. Then there is the tax, insurance and wear and tear. As you pointed out that would be a casual user rate but this would be a regular daily and contractual obligation.
Soooo if things go pear shaped there is a new agenda for discussion and increasing income.
Thats a fair starting point for mileage. Then there is the tax, insurance and wear and tear. As you pointed out that would be a casual user rate but this would be a regular daily and contractual obligation.
Soooo if things go pear shaped there is a new agenda for discussion and increasing income.