Now that tribunal fees have been ruled unlawful..

Post by **stephen500** » 27 Jul 2017, 08:22

Does it now mean that any of us can now take Royal Mail to a tribunal at no cost over it seeking to end legacy payments, found in the way forward agreement, which was said to be in perpetuity and on an individual rights basis?

Post by **wacko74** » 27 Jul 2017, 11:43

Given all the other many and varied ways that RM are looking to shaft the current and future workforce I think legacy payments (in the sense of receiving additional money for tasks you no longer perform) would be viewed as a rather inconsequential and frivolous issue.

rubberbond · Post by **rubberbond** » 27 Jul 2017, 13:53

wacko74 wrote:Given all the other many and varied ways that RM are looking to shaft the current and future workforce I think legacy payments (in the sense of receiving additional money for tasks you no longer perform) would be viewed as a rather inconsequential and frivolous issue.

You ought to add the word, "further," as in "RM are looking to further shaft the current and future workforce",

shayanboon · Post by **shayanboon** » 27 Jul 2017, 17:03

As a query to the above question feasibly would a group of employees take Royal mail to task for irregular payments since the original revision date and a raft of underpayments?

Celtic Postman · Post by **Celtic Postman** » 27 Jul 2017, 19:06

wacko74 wrote:Given all the other many and varied ways that RM are looking to shaft the current and future workforce I think legacy payments (in the sense of receiving additional money for tasks you no longer perform) would be viewed as a rather inconsequential and frivolous issue.

Considering that the wording in the "Legal" documentation was signed in good faith by RM management in (or for) perpetuity
meaning "Forever, permanently, for always, for good, for good and all, perpetually, (for) evermore, for ever and ever, for all (future) time, until the end of time, eternally, for eternity, everlastingly"

This was presented as for the individual and therefor should never be included as part of a collective bargaining, I believe that there is a legal case to argue that it cannot be taken away as suggested and should be challenged.