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!

Parliamentary Motion demands justice for sacked postman

Latest Royal Mail and CWU news.This is an open forum.
TrueBlueTerrier
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 72733
Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
Gender: Male
Location: On my couch

Parliamentary Motion demands justice for sacked postman

Post by TrueBlueTerrier »

http://www.cwu.org/media/news/2016/marc ... d-postman/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

A Parliamentary Motion has been tabled asking the Government to make formal representations urging Royal Mail to obey a Court Order reinstating a postman who was unlawfully sacked.

With thousands of Scottish CWU members poised to begin voting on strike action over the issue, North East Fife MP Stephen Gethins has put down Early Day Motion 1188, which draws the attention of the House of Commons to the injustice suffered by delivery worker David Mitchell, who is one of Mr Gethins’s constituents.

David, who has worked for Royal Mail for over 27 years, won a Court Order last September rescinding his summary dismissal after Judge Ian MacFatridge ruled that the company’s action had been “unfair and the primary remedy contained in the legislation is reinstatement.”

The company refused to comply with this ruling and adopted a similar attitude to a Court Instruction from a Remedy Hearing last November, claiming that it is under no obligation to obey Orders of the Court.

In response to Royal Mail’s unlawful action, the CWU’s national leadership formally approved a request from Scotland 2 Branch for a strike ballot across large parts of the country aimed at enforcing the Order of the Court, and David Mitchell’s MP submitted the Parliamentary Motion.

EDM 1188, which is also sponsored by Scottish MPs Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk), Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) and Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West), as well as Labour’s Alan Meale (Mansfield) and Gareth Thomas (Harrow West), states “That this House…is disappointed in Royal Mail's failure to reinstate Mr Mitchell and respect employment legislation…” and “…calls on the Government to make representations to the Royal Mail about David Mitchell's case and respecting the decisions of the judicial rulings.”

Speaking to STV after he tabled the Motion last Friday, Mr Gethins explained: "This is question of fairness. There have now been two court rulings in Mr Mitchell's favour and Royal Mail need to respect that."

Scotland 2 Branch secretary Kenny Logan said that the union “warmly welcomes” the Parliamentary Motion.

“We’re preparing for our ballot, and it’s a great morale boost to know that, as well as being backed by local people, that we’re also being supported by our local Member of Parliament.

“I hope MPs from right across the UK will also sign up to Mr Gethins’s EDM – maybe the Government might stop and think that before they bring in new laws for unions, they should make sure the employers obey the courts too.”

Has your MP signed this Early Day Motion yet?: (link to http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/1188" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
daveyeff
Posts: 4699
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 19:38
Gender: Male

Parliamentary Motion demands justice for sacked postman

Post by daveyeff »

how can they weasel their way out of this now.
datasaint
Posts: 1541
Joined: 22 Sep 2008, 17:19
Gender: Male

Parliamentary Motion demands justice for sacked postman

Post by datasaint »

Surely this has blown out of all proportion now.

RM get bad PR, face potential strike action and pay untold money to legal execs to dispute this in court ... instead of giving the guy his job back at the first hearing.

Yes we all support safeguarding the integrity of the mail, but at the end of the day you can't label somebody a thief with no evidence.