I shall be voting "yes"

[gluteus maximus]

I am asking this question as a trade unionist, though not the CWU.

What are these legal protections being banded about. Correct me if i am in error but the UK courts do not recognise any agreement between a Trade Union and employer. If an agreement is now legally binding, (How) that agreement will be between the CWU and Royal Mail, not the employees.

Now if one side breaches said agreement, how do you quantify any loss. Any damages claimed will be minimal as you can only claim for any direct loss

It is a legal contract between Royal Mail and the CWU , it dictates that Royal Mail can not break up the company , outsource any work , franchise any of its work , they cannot create a two tier work force or employ anyone on a zero hour contract. The commitments and protection have no end date and the first review is 2018.

The contract is between the CWU who have 85% membership in Royal Mail higher in urban areas. It appears as an annex to the agreement and is legally enforceable. It would not result in suing either party but if Royal Mail were to say employ zero hour contract or outsource work to a third party and broke the legal guarantees the CWU can seek an injunction that they
had broken the legal contract and they like they have done to the CWU before be in contempt of court if they did not abide by the injunction.

DINGO

I am intrigued by this legal agreement and how it has been secured under law. As i have stated, the courts do not recognise trade union agreements. You mention an annex to the agreement that makes it legally enforceable. Might i ask for a link to this agreement annex so i can understand how these legal protections have been secured under law. Thanks

[Martin Walsh]

GM I am not sure if the annex is widely available , but the Folowing is the scope of the agreement.

2.1 The company and the CWU intend to enter this agreement on the basis that it is legally enforceable contract between the company and the CWU. Accordingly the statutory presumption referred to in section 179 (1) of the Trade Union and Labour relations ( consolidation act will not apply.

2.2 For the avoidance of doubt no current agreement shall contnitute a legally binding agreement. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this agreement and the wording of the current agreement , the terms of this agreement will prevail.

2.3 The protection set out in clause 3.17 of this agreement shall be read in the context of the provisions of the job security , resourcing and manager change agreement.

2.4 nothing in this agreement shall prevent either party from seeking injunctive relief , specific performance or any other equitable relief for any breach of the provisions of this agreement.

2.5 The rights and obligations of the parties under this agreement are at all times subject to legal and regulatory requirements.

Other points within the legal contract which are important and it is 23 pages long are :

11.1 This agreement constitutes the only legally binding agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter of this agreement.

11.2 The rights and obligations of the parties under this agreement shall not be capable of assignment.

11.3. This agreement does not form part of the contract of any employee of the company.

11.4 The parties do not intend that any term of this agreement will be enforceable under the contract (Rights of third parties ) Act 1999 by any person other than the parties.

11.5 if the company or CWU delays or fails to exercise a right to remedy under or in connection with this agreement this will not constitute a waiver of or prevent or restrict future exercise of , that or any other right or remedy and the single or partial exercise of a right or remedy will not prevent or restrict the further exercise of that or any other right or remedy.

11.6 The rights , powers and remedies provided by this agreement are cumulative and not exclusive or any rights , powers and remedies provided by law.

11.10 This agreement shales be governed by , construed and take effect in accordance with English law. ( it covers Sctoland , Wales and Northern Ireland as well )

11. Subject to clause 9.2 the courts of England shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any claim , counterclaim , dispute or difference which may arise out or in connection with this agreement or the legal relationships established by this agreement.

other important points

8.1 Where the CWU considers the company is in breach of any of the protections , it will give written notice of the all alleged breach to the company. Following the reciept of such notice the company shall have a period of grace of 4 weeks ( or longer if the CWU agrees ) within which to remedy the notified breach prior to the CWU instituting legal proceedings to seek such a remedy.

8.2 Clause 8.1 will not apply if the CWU believes on reasonable grounds that following a period of grace might place the alleged breach beyond remedy.

The legal contract has been written by lawyers acting for Royal Mail and one acting for the CWU from Thompsons.

This is what was explained to reps by the Thomsons solicitor Ivan Walker at our briefing which cleared up a lots of the issues and fears reps had.

[dvbuk55]

Well that'll be 28 pages of worthless legal bollocks that nobody understands and has so many twists and turns a snake would have a job following it but apparently not writing it.

[gluteus maximus]

Do we have a link to the entire annex as that document is stated as 23 pages long. (legal protections)

179(b) TULRCA 1992 states that any agreement between a Trade Union and Employer can be legally enforceable if:

179 Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract.

(1)A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—

(a)is in writing, and

(b)contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract.

My question is under what statutory provision have these legal protections been attained. Contract law is common law. So Under what English law has this contract been attained?
Under common law a promise is not generally legally binding unless supported by consideration. Consideration is something of value. The offence for breach of contract comes under common law, or TORT. That is a Civil wrong.

If any party breaches an agreement, all the courts can do is put the injured party back into the same position as before the breach. As this is an agreement between the CWU and Royal Mail, and not the employees, any breach will be negligible

Can you please provide a link to the rest of this 23 page document on legal protections so i can formulate an objective response for debate please.

[Martin Walsh]

As I pointed out the agreement or contract agrees that section 179 of the Trade Union Act 1992 does not apply and there allows it to be a legally binding agreement.

I suggest you contact our head office if you want a copy . My understand is that the TUC have been very supportive in this new approach by a trade union to deal with the impact of privisation which has all too often to work being outsourced , franchised and a two tier workforce.

[BernardBresslaw]

My understand is that the TUC have been very supportive in this new approach by a trade union to deal with the impact of privisation which has all too often to work being outsourced , franchised and a two tier workforce.

All of those three things can still come about if a third party becomes a majority shareholder under certain circumstances, according to section 3 of the agreement.

[gluteus maximus]

Dingo

I am not connected to Royal Mail as i am not employed by them to make such a request. I am employed in the justice system though.

I am a Trade Union Official, Not CWU

I just thought this agreement will be common knowledge and open to all members to inspect prior to the ballot on acceptance.

Why has the full agreement including the full legal protections not been made avaliable to the members to vote on?

[Martin Walsh]

Dingo

I am not connected to Royal Mail as i am not employed by them to make such a request. I am employed in the justice system though.

I am a Trade Union Official, Not CWU

I just thought this agreement will be common knowledge and open to all members to inspect prior to the ballot on acceptance.

Why has the full agreement including the full legal protections not been made avaliable to the members to vote on?

This is anonymous site so I cannot give out a confidential document to yourself.

The full agreement has been put out to the members but the legal contract has not as yet I believe.

[Martin Walsh]

My understand is that the TUC have been very supportive in this new approach by a trade union to deal with the impact of privisation which has all too often to work being outsourced , franchised and a two tier workforce.

All of those three things can still come about if a third party becomes a majority shareholder under certain circumstances, according to section 3 of the agreement.

No the agreement has only those clauses which are standard in most agreements and they can still are subject to a legal objective test.

[goinpostal]

But Dingo you forgot the get out clause that means all of that is worthless, it won't stand up in court.

And it's up to Royal Mail to decide what are "reasonable grounds", what is "likely" to hit profits (or just), what strikes are disruptive (it will be all of them) and which aren't.

You can look at the agreement online at the CWU website its here
http://www.cwu.org/news/archive/cwu-rec ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

7 Exceptional Circumstances

7.1 The Employer shall be entitled to notify the CWU at any time that any of the Protections will no longer continue, if any of the following exceptional circumstances apply:

a) if Royal Mail ceases to be the designated Universal Service provider;

b) in circumstances where, the Employer believes on reasonable grounds that continuing the Protection concerned would, or would be likely to, place the company in breach of, or result in the Employer being unable to comply with, any legal or regulatory requirement;

c) in the event that the Employer believes on reasonable grounds that any part of the business to which a Protection applies has ceased to be, or is likely to cease being, financially sustainable;

d) in the event that the Employer believes on reasonable grounds that a significant event or series of events has occurred, or is likely to occur that has a material adverse effect, or is reasonably likely to have a materially adverse effect on: (i) the Employer’s business or prospects or (ii) the legal or regulatory basis on which the Employer operates (including but not limited to the Employer's position as the sole Universal Service Provider); or

e) if there is national-scale industrial action (in the form of a strike or action short of a strike) which has been authorised at national level by the CWU, namely industrial action which either (i) involves employees in the majority of operational workplaces across Royal Mail Group Limited; or (ii) involves employees in an integral part of the operation whereby taking action will have, or is reasonably likely to have, a similarly disruptive effect.

[gluteus maximus]

The full agreement has been put out to the members but the legal contract has not as yet I believe.

I am sorry to keep pushing this Dingo, believe me it is nothing personal so please do not take it that way.

Why has this legal contract not been put out for the members to agree on, The agreement has, but the substantive provisions on the legal protections are being withheld. Why?

It gives the impression of Cloak and Dagger, something to hide, and clandestine in nature

[goinpostal]

So what are you saying GM that even as a legal agreement - leaving the get out clauses to one side - it might not have any real legal force to it? Feel free to pick all that stuff out I dont think anyone else here knows about it your doing us a favour! We can send a question to the head office or reps can ask in the upcoming meetings with national officers where they'll try to sell us the deal.

[fishtank]

I have to say I've never known the courts to be a friend of unions.
I suspect we'll keep our terms and conditions as long as it suits the employer and not a minute longer and I can't see how a court injunction if granted would do anything other than request a resetting of the position and provoke a change of attack.

Why does HR,IT and Finance only get 2 years of protection?
Is this Royal Mail's first target for outsourcing?
Are those our "acceptable casualties of war"?

[goinpostal]

Why does HR,IT and Finance only get 2 years of protection?
Is this Royal Mail's first target for outsourcing?
Are those our "acceptable casualties of war"?

Yep collateral damage

Thats a realy important question, if its legally unprecedented like Dave WArds said it might not even work, just a big gamble.

[chrisj]

point 6 is clearly a no-national strike clause; so walk-outs are acceptable but those will be resolved locally or swept under the carpet, and this is what some powerful arm of the Union prefer anyway...

The perceived break-up, franchising and outsourcing is not really an option for a newly privatised company like Royal Mail. As long as RM is the main USO and it is making healthy profits; it will make no business sense to break itself up and outsource to would-be competitors. Franchising is not such an easy thing to set up... And it is more for a company that has got too big and where 'economies of scale' has turned negative. and where smaller units can be stable financially and partially controlled. The Dutch experience shows that it is not the same as delivering parcels and/or selling burgers/chicken or forecourts.

The only part that is really relevant is the issue of a two-tier workforce. In the main, the protection was there for current employees but extended further - good! On the negative side, a two-tier workforce for new entrants will most likely creep in further before the end of the protection term.

The clauses are definitely very much in favour of RM but then they are the business and employers and they have to make a healthy profit to keep us employed at a decent pay. However, the no-strike clause?