still no news on dave mitchell

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 27 Sep 2016, 17:33

it would seem royal mail have won this one. been months and months and months now. union don't seem to care.

Post by **greengiant** » 27 Sep 2016, 18:30

Unless they are busy behind the scenes? But it has been rather worringly quiet about dave mitchell.

bogues2009 · Post by **bogues2009** » 28 Sep 2016, 05:32

'Deal' offered to D.Mitchell.
Union cant fight this one any more as law is on RM side.
Dont know though if he will be cleared of all allegations.
It will be probably low profile now on RM request.
The ball is now on DMitchell side waiting if he signs it.
Scary times ahead for all potential victims of RM 'set up' allegations.
If postie got no time, energy, resources then in practice CWU can do nothing about it.
Law has to change otherwise RM lawyers will take advantage of that loophole.

hans solo · Post by **hans solo** » 28 Sep 2016, 12:47

should have all walked at the time
cwu s**t scared of mass walkouts as when they get mandate from the membership they capitulate line their own pockets and bow down to their masters and toe the line

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 28 Sep 2016, 17:24

bogues2009 wrote:'
Union cant fight this one any more as law is on RM side.

The "law" cleared Dave Mitchell IIRC.
When its members have been balloted the union can withdraw the labour of its members can't it. Or is that illegal now ?

This is a big defeat for us all - and in particular a big hit to the credibilty of the union as an effective force in the defence of our employment rights.

We need some answers here as to what the f**k is going on with the Dave Mitchell case. Because its a bit rude (to say the least) to go to ground and hope that we'll all forget about it.

Post by **PHARRY** » 30 Sep 2016, 20:26

Forget him he's happy with his 50'000 Quid

bogues2009 · Post by **bogues2009** » 30 Sep 2016, 20:59

The law has to change as at the moment the employer dont have to follow judges advice on reinstating an employee accussed and then cleared of wrongdoing. It is a loophole in the law which CWU is not going to challenge here anymore in this case as far as I know. Dave wife I think works in the media thatz why this case was so high profile otherwise it would be long forgotten by CWU and RM. Scary times ahead! Take shares and EVR if offered and go!

tomthum · Post by **tomthum** » 03 Oct 2016, 17:35

jetblack wrote:
bogues2009 wrote:'
Union cant fight this one any more as law is on RM side.
The "law" cleared Dave Mitchell IIRC.
When its members have been balloted the union can withdraw the labour of its members can't it. Or is that illegal now ?

This is a big defeat for us all - and in particular a big hit to the credibilty of the union as an effective force in the defence of our employment rights.

We need some answers here as to what the f**k is going on with the Dave Mitchell case. Because its a bit rude (to say the least) to go to ground and hope that we'll all forget about it.

instead of asking for answers from the union why not ask Mr Mitchell, after all he got support and people lost wages so where is his response to all this help and support????????

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 03 Oct 2016, 17:39

tomthum wrote:
instead of asking for answers from the union why not ask Mr Mitchell, after all he got support and people lost wages so where is his response to all this help and support????????

All over the forum, press clippings and letters from the Union. Not to forget his profuse thanks at the picket line, and during the ballot. Jut because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't been given.

tomthum · Post by **tomthum** » 03 Oct 2016, 17:44

not meaning in the past I am meaning just now as in I am happy with what I have been offered or I am not happy with what I have been offered not really hard is it just saying because ultimately he is the only one who knows

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 03 Oct 2016, 17:54

tomthum wrote:not meaning in the past I am meaning just now as in I am happy with what I have been offered or I am not happy with what I have been offered not really hard is it just saying because ultimately he is the only one who knows

He won't be able to. Royal Mail ALWAYS include a gagging order, sorry non-disclosure condition, in any settlement. It's usually very strict, the punishment for breaking it quite severe and financially costly. They even include non-disclosure that a settlement has even been made as part of it.

This is not just RM, its usual for high profile cases, or those where a business lost an ET appeal but didn't reinstate the employee.

tomthum · Post by **tomthum** » 03 Oct 2016, 18:03

don't think you are grasping my meaning
your response is the same one that the union are bound by so why do people expect a big fanfare from the union when nobody seems to know if he has settled or not. so again can he not indicate if he has settled or not then we would have some closure no details obviously just closure

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 03 Oct 2016, 18:10

tomthum wrote:don't think you are grasping my meaning
your response is the same one that the union are bound by so why do people expect a big fanfare from the union when nobody seems to know if he has settled or not. so again can he not indicate if he has settled or not then we would have some closure no details obviously just closure

No.

Because even disclosing that there was a settlement is usually against the non-disclosure clause of the settlement.

tomthum · Post by **tomthum** » 03 Oct 2016, 18:14

so again its just people coming on here whinging about the union and not knowing the procedures

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 03 Oct 2016, 18:16

tomthum wrote:so again its just people coming on here whinging about the union and not knowing the procedures

In a way