Royal Mail injunction plans

[Lounge Lizard]

DP,
Having a massive "yes" majority and then the "no" voters going against the decision and doing what they want - "but that's what Democracy is about" - really ?

[tommyrep]

Ha yes it's true the nature of the work cultivates an "every man for himself" attitude for sure. Get done - get home. I just meant that a national call to work to rule / work to time will undoubtedly be called a strike, so not really an option if the injunction is granted.

If however strikes are permitted it might be a good method towards the end of any prolonged period (36 days of striking in Canada?!) when wallets are looking thin.

We've had a few "Characters" saying they voted No and they're going to be coming in if there's a strike. One told the Rep he doesn't agree with striking so he'll be working. I must admit to being a bit pissed off at their attitude, but that's what Democracy is about!

To get to your point, one of them is the most selfish bloke in the office, always pleases himself what he does. A true Runner that ALWAYS finishes early (in fact he takes it as a personal insult if someone gets back to the office before him) When I pointed out to him that one idea RM wants is for "Walk Ownership", working in TEAMS, and having to cover for Team Members on Leave (or Sick) with no additional Overtime...... well his face was a picture. Of course he hadn't been in the Union Briefing talking about these points because......... he had to get out on delivery and couldn't afford to waste the time! We really are working with idiots.

Yes, we are working with many idiots -unfortunately. ( too many )
Our unit - many moons ago - was pretty much together on starting times,breaks etc. If never lasted long. Gradually, the playground mentality took over. Follow the leader soon won over the weak sheep. I even heard one reason for starting early and missing the break time and staying behind "after duty time" to put in next days D2Ds from a 20 year on the job postie ! " If I did not do it, I would never complete on time " No exaggeration, true. Young new starts follow the routine of others. It started with one bad apple and spread like a cancer. Managers laugh their b...s off. So easy, they do not need to turn the screw to enforce more work onto ALL staff. Years of Union pleas to do our job properly went unheeded. We have always been our own worst enemies. So, having said that an having initiated this thread, I know many of the grass root posties really do not have any bottle for a fight, they are happy to take all the s**t thrown at them because there are TOO many spineless characters among them. The threat of RM injunction plans is music to the ears of many of my colleagues, sadly!

[peterloo]

So wouldn't this be a bit of a double edged sword for RM if the agreement is legally enforceable, if the injunction is upheld. Then the CWU can smack them around the courts on loads of stuff like resourcing, pensions, part time contracted hours and it wouldn't cost CWU the legal fees. I've been told we haven't taken them to court previously because it was considered the nuclear option and If we were to lose, the whole agreement goes down the swanny!

[Dorset Plodder]

DP,
Having a massive "yes" majority and then the "no" voters going against the decision and doing what they want - "but that's what Democracy is about" - really ?

Didn't express myself very well there did I? I agree with you that if there's a Majority vote to strike (or leave Europe) then Democracy should dictate that everyone strikes.

The point I was trying to express was that in a Democracy we have a choice. It was his choice to vote No.... but I agree with you that he should have then excepted the Majority Decision

However he's not alone, in his view of a Democratic Vote, there's a few million other people out there that still don't accept the Brexit decision.

[LaggyBand]

So wouldn't this be a bit of a double edged sword for RM if the agreement is legally enforceable, if the injunction is upheld. Then the CWU can smack them around the courts on loads of stuff like resourcing, pensions, part time contracted hours and it wouldn't cost CWU the legal fees. I've been told we haven't taken them to court previously because it was considered the nuclear option and If we were to lose, the whole agreement goes down the swanny!

I agree with you. An injunction should not necessarily be seen as a defeat for the union. They then get to hear deals, and if they are no good, they know they have the workforce on board to strike. One even more pissed off than before. And like you said, RM will have paved the way for getting all "legal-ey".

[LouBarlow]

So wouldn't this be a bit of a double edged sword for RM if the agreement is legally enforceable, if the injunction is upheld. Then the CWU can smack them around the courts on loads of stuff like resourcing, pensions, part time contracted hours and it wouldn't cost CWU the legal fees. I've been told we haven't taken them to court previously because it was considered the nuclear option and If we were to lose, the whole agreement goes down the swanny!

I agree with you. An injunction should not necessarily be seen as a defeat for the union. They then get to hear deals, and if they are no good, they know they have the workforce on board to strike. One even more pissed off than before. And like you said, RM will have paved the way for getting all "legal-ey".

They will have to ballot again for one. It was a big deal for this vote to pass the 50% threshold for the new union strike rules, so there is still uncertainty whether they can achieve such a response in the future, especially if people become disillusioned, should the induction happen tomorrow.

[LaggyBand]

So wouldn't this be a bit of a double edged sword for RM if the agreement is legally enforceable, if the injunction is upheld. Then the CWU can smack them around the courts on loads of stuff like resourcing, pensions, part time contracted hours and it wouldn't cost CWU the legal fees. I've been told we haven't taken them to court previously because it was considered the nuclear option and If we were to lose, the whole agreement goes down the swanny!

I agree with you. An injunction should not necessarily be seen as a defeat for the union. They then get to hear deals, and if they are no good, they know they have the workforce on board to strike. One even more pissed off than before. And like you said, RM will have paved the way for getting all "legal-ey".

They will have to ballot again for one. It was a big deal for this vote to pass the 50% threshold for the new union strike rules, so there is still uncertainty whether they can achieve such a response in the future, especially if people become disillusioned, should the induction happen tomorrow.

Union just proved ballots ain't a thing. They piss all over ballots. Or eat them for breakfast. Depends how they're feeling.

[daveyeff]

So wouldn't this be a bit of a double edged sword for RM if the agreement is legally enforceable, if the injunction is upheld. Then the CWU can smack them around the courts on loads of stuff like resourcing, pensions, part time contracted hours and it wouldn't cost CWU the legal fees. I've been told we haven't taken them to court previously because it was considered the nuclear option and If we were to lose, the whole agreement goes down the swanny!

I agree with you. An injunction should not necessarily be seen as a defeat for the union. They then get to hear deals, and if they are no good, they know they have the workforce on board to strike. One even more pissed off than before. And like you said, RM will have paved the way for getting all "legal-ey".

They will have to ballot again for one. It was a big deal for this vote to pass the 50% threshold for the new union strike rules, so there is still uncertainty whether they can achieve such a response in the future, especially if people become disillusioned, should the induction happen tomorrow.

they don't have to ballot again, if RM wins the injunction, it just delays the strikes for 5 weeks or so. the ballot is live now for 6 months, whether they win or not.

[jetblack]

They will have to ballot again for one.

They won't Lou - the Trade Union Act states'' Industrial action ballot mandates will expire after four months; industrial action after this point will require a fresh ballot'' (Clause 8).

When was our ballot result declared ? 2nd Oct ? That gives us till 2nd Feb 2018.

edit. must be said, however, that prior to the Trade Union Act 2016, and so long as IA started within 4 weeks of the ballot, the mandate for IA didn't expire ie. no need for a second ballot.
This is not now the case. New ballot must be held after 4 months. Could be that RMG are engaged in stretching things out in the hope that when the second ballot has to be held the unnecessarily severe and punitive minimum requirements for IA won't be met a second time around.
In fact, I'd bet money that this is part of RMG's strategy here.

[stephen500]

They will have to ballot again for one.

They won't Lou - the Trade Union Act states'' Industrial action ballot mandates will expire after four months; industrial action after this point will require a fresh ballot'' (Clause 8).

When was our ballot result declared ? 2nd Oct ? That gives us till 2nd Feb 2018.

Not now, under the trade union act of 2016, ballots now last for 6 months

[daveyeff]

as I was saying

[stephen500]

They will have to ballot again for one.

They won't Lou - the Trade Union Act states'' Industrial action ballot mandates will expire after four months; industrial action after this point will require a fresh ballot'' (Clause 8).

When was our ballot result declared ? 2nd Oct ? That gives us till 2nd Feb 2018.

Six months. TU act 2016

[stephen500]

They will have to ballot again for one.

They won't Lou - the Trade Union Act states'' Industrial action ballot mandates will expire after four months; industrial action after this point will require a fresh ballot'' (Clause 8).

When was our ballot result declared ? 2nd Oct ? That gives us till 2nd Feb 2018.

edit. must be said, however, that prior to the Trade Union Act 2016, and so long as IA started within 4 weeks of the ballot, the mandate for IA didn't expire ie. no need for a second ballot.
This is not now the case. New ballot must be held after 4 months. Could be that RMG are engaged in stretching things out in the hope that when the second ballot has to be held the unnecessarily severe and punitive minimum requirements for IA won't be met a second time around.
In fact, I'd bet money that this is part of RMG's strategy here.

Now six months

[jetblack]

Wether its 4 or 6 months, if RMG can get an injunction to wipe out the first 2 months of the mandate I'd say thats a pretty good result on their part.

[robd]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpo ... 62596.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The same who ruled on this