Hi all,
i have a postie who is trying to claim travelling expenses from RM for 2009/10
He was a Royal Mail casual employed in one office but asked to go to another(mine) as they were short staffed due to sick, on/off for a year.
He was only 3 weeks in the job at the time didn't know you could claim also wasn't told by anyone.
He recently found out that he should've been paid so he came to me.
We are at stage 3 of a grievance, RM's view is that as a CASUAL he's wasn't entitled, but they are looking into it.
So if a FT/PT employee went and a Casual the PT/FT could get expenses but not the casual?? that's discrimination is it not.
What i need is anyone who knows any Royal Mail casuals that were paid travel expenses around that time 2008/9/10
to show that it was done.
Thanks for any assistance, this is a real good lad and he deserves a break
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!
Need some help mates
-
cloherty1976
- MAIL CENTRES/PROCESSING
- Posts: 1236
- Joined: 11 Mar 2010, 12:16
- Gender: Male
- Location: The south
Re: Need some help mates
I am sure he can't claim off Royal Mail but being a casual or agency worker they can claim travel expenses but would need receipts for petrol or travel receipts off hmrc which can backdate upto 4 years..
-
coxie
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 1336
- Joined: 09 Oct 2009, 14:57
- Gender: Male
Re: Need some help mates
If he's a casual he would have come from an agency, Royal Mail would not pay for travel that would be down to the agency, Royal Mail ring up and say send us a few casuals on Wednesday, they don't ask about travel that's not their concern. If he's a rm employee then he may claim, if he's a casual forget it.
-
beanmuncha
- Posts: 305
- Joined: 21 Aug 2007, 23:11
Re: Need some help mates
He wasn't an agency casual he was a Royal Mail casual, same as what i was when i started.
In other words he was a Royal Mail employee, RM are trying to say as a RM casual he didn't have the same rights as a permanent.
all i need is a couple of RM casuals who got paid expenses to win this.
In other words he was a Royal Mail employee, RM are trying to say as a RM casual he didn't have the same rights as a permanent.
all i need is a couple of RM casuals who got paid expenses to win this.