Ballot regards the Reinstatement of David Mitchell sacked Postman from Cupar D.O.

Destiny · Post by **Destiny** » 02 Apr 2016, 18:18

Apathy & rejection of the union would see this largely ignored at my office and one my uncle works at.
Couldn't see more than 1:10 of them batting an eyelid

The speed of this hopefully I can support Dave by next year

Post by **greengiant** » 05 Apr 2016, 14:19

We all got handed a brief today, which gave the RM viewpoint and urging "no" vote with regards to the strike ballot. Apparently the same brief will be arriving by post too. I wonder if the CWU will get to had out and send out briefs giving their view?

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 05 Apr 2016, 14:56

greengiant wrote:We all got handed a brief today, which gave the RM viewpoint and urging "no" vote with regards to the strike ballot. Apparently the same brief will be arriving by post too. I wonder if the CWU will get to had out and send out briefs giving their view?

and what was their view?

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 05 Apr 2016, 14:58

why give their view point now, why couldn't they put their viewpoint over when this first happened.? only when the strike escalates they give out their viewpoint.

oypostie · Post by **oypostie** » 05 Apr 2016, 15:44

Royal Mail have had their viewpoint and two couirts have found against it. Sooner this escalates the better. Go on Scotland do us proud

Denisthemenace · Post by **Denisthemenace** » 06 Apr 2016, 21:31

Let's hope the post men and women will ignore the R M propaganda and ballot for strike action. They will suffer loss of pay but hopefully they will see the bigger picture . If R M wins this one they will be laughing at riding roughshod over every employee in the land. They can hire and fire at will,ignore a judges ruling and use Dave Mitchell as a scapegoat. The Union will be worthless . This is shocking behaviour from a colossal sized company like RM. Dave is a lovely honest innocent guy. I beg you to help, stand up and be counted.

sweeneytoddd · Post by **sweeneytoddd** » 06 Apr 2016, 23:16

daveyeff wrote:best of luck. and I hope we win and he gets his job back.

Don't think he's looking for his job back- I'm led to believe he's ( or his lawyer) looking for 10 years salary as compensation

NWpostie · Post by **NWpostie** » 07 Apr 2016, 10:01

sweeneytoddd wrote:
daveyeff wrote:best of luck. and I hope we win and he gets his job back.
Don't think he's looking for his job back- I'm led to believe he's ( or his lawyer) looking for 10 years salary as compensation

If true it might be a way out for both sides, on one hand RM would realise every time it sacks an employee on spurious grounds then lose a tribunal twice, it will cost them a lot of money as well as adverse publicity and David Mitchell would get a lot more than he would have got on VR, his future sorted, make RM pays the tax on the payout before handing over the agreed sum so he doesn't get stung by unexpected charges, also no gagging clauses, Dave must be free to speak of his experience with book royalties in order to secure his future as his future employment prospects is damaged. RM would be desperate to resolve this that they would agree to anything.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 07 Apr 2016, 13:21

sweeneytoddd wrote:
daveyeff wrote:best of luck. and I hope we win and he gets his job back.
Don't think he's looking for his job back- I'm led to believe he's ( or his lawyer) looking for 10 years salary as compensation

Where has that come from because I haven't heard it and I am in contact with someone very close to him. I think this is another spurious rumour caused by managers trying to muddy the waters. The sad thing is people will believe it.

themoog · Post by **themoog** » 07 Apr 2016, 14:14

Shame the union can't ballot every member.

Four square behind your efforts, and I hope Mr Mitchell gets re-instated

sweeneytoddd · Post by **sweeneytoddd** » 07 Apr 2016, 14:17

Actually it came from our rep- would help if the union would come out and actually confirm what they are looking to achieve

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 07 Apr 2016, 15:19

sweeneytoddd wrote:Actually it came from our rep- would help if the union would come out and actually confirm what they are looking to achieve

I know your rep so I'll ask directly.
What the union is looking to achieve is simple, stop Royal Mail ignoring the judgement of an industrial tribunal.
You would think that would be enough for you guys.

Now what do you hope to achieve by spreading made up s**t like that on here?

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 07 Apr 2016, 15:23

well Dave Mitchell has said he just wants his job back, and to put all this behind him...... his words.

sweeneytoddd · Post by **sweeneytoddd** » 07 Apr 2016, 16:59

fishtank wrote:
sweeneytoddd wrote:Actually it came from our rep- would help if the union would come out and actually confirm what they are looking to achieve
I know your rep so I'll ask directly.
What the union is looking to achieve is simple, stop Royal Mail ignoring the judgement of an industrial tribunal.
You would think that would be enough for you guys.

Now what do you hope to achieve by spreading made up s**t like that on here?

Exactly what made up s**t have I been spreading?
Asked a fairly simple question and get abused for it
I'm being asked to forfeit a days wage to support this colleague so I think I have every right to ask questions about it

Post by **greengiant** » 07 Apr 2016, 17:38

sweeneytoddd wrote: Exactly what made up s**t have I been spreading?
Asked a fairly simple question and get abused for it
I'm being asked to forfeit a days wage to support this colleague so I think I have every right to ask questions about it

Do you have actual evidence of this:

sweeneytoddd wrote: Don't think he's looking for his job back- I'm led to believe he's ( or his lawyer) looking for 10 years salary as compensation

Or is this just rumour spreading of heresay?

The thing about this case, it could happen to you, or I, or any of us. If RM have "reasonable grounds" that mail has been stolen, that's all they need to sack staff, despite lack of hard evidence.