High Court Date Thursday! 10.30am

[fishtank]

To get to a rule 13 situation, would you not have had to involved external mediation first?

To enforce that wouldn't it need another court injunction, does royal mail have that many lawyers?

[jetblack]

One of the questions we should be asking is why it has never done so.

Maybe.
But in light of this ...

A high court injunction is a serious thing. If our union chooses to ignore it, then all of the unions's assets could be seized and our leaders fined for contempt of court
"26 OCTOBER 1984 – National union of Mineworkers rejects NCB demands. High Court orders total sequestration of NUM funds.
28 OCTOBER 1984 – Court moves to makes 24 members of the NUM executive liable for the £200,000 contempt fine."

....I'd say that one of the questions that needs asking is what steps are being taken to secure our funds, thereby enabling the members to collectively pursue their own path in a manner they see fit, as free men and women.

[Phantom]

The Royal Mail Board do not have the workforce on board therefore my office has said that if this strike does not happen then we will all work to rule and ban all overtime - we will cut off at every given opportunity - no parcels will be delivered to neighbours as we will deem it as unsafe to do (this happens now).

I do think RM going to the high court will only infuriate the situation even more (a good thing for the CWU) not so good for the RM board.

[stephen500]

Many of my colleagues are of the opinion that it doesn't matter what the court decides, they will be out for those two days regardless.

Then they would be fools and play into Rm's hands.
The ballot is legal, the argument is about whether the CWU and RM have to have external mediation. Once that process was exhausted and any high court injunction lifted our union could once again give 14 days. Notice. I for one would not advocate action in contravention of a High court order. Rather than win a dispute, it could make it impossible for our National union to work for us. At most we have to wait around 5 weeks and 14 days notice. Cool heads are needed.

[Dexydog]

Many of my colleagues are of the opinion that it doesn't matter what the court decides, they will be out for those two days regardless.

Good luck to them.
And to finding another job afterwards.

[UrbanPirate]

Just to correct a few lies on the thread a local office could legitimately ballot its members over any local issue, as long as procedure was followed ( rule 13) it would neither be wildcat or unlawful, neither would it be in breach of any court injunction.

No matter what kind of action was taken individual members would not be in breach of any court injunction, the union could be if it was shown to be orchestrating local action at national level but not individual members, they are not named on the injunction.

I'm obviously not advocating anything, just giving the correct legal position.

But what people are suggesting would not be local issues and very obviously connected to the 4 pillars. They would be in breach of contract. I would definitely think long and hard about your continued employment with RM if one was still to strike if the injunction is successful. Perhaps i was wrong to suggest the individual would be held in contempt but any mass walkouts would definitely endanger the unions position. I think you and the union need to make this clear to people if you are offering advice.

[fishtank]

All strike action is a breach of contract.

[jetblack]

Many of my colleagues are of the opinion that it doesn't matter what the court decides, they will be out for those two days regardless.

Then they would be fools and play into Rm's hands.
The ballot is legal, the argument is about whether the CWU and RM have to have external mediation. Once that process was exhausted and any high court injunction lifted our union could once again give 14 days. Notice. I for one would not advocate action in contravention of a High court order. Rather than win a dispute, it could make it impossible for our National union to work for us. At most we have to wait around 5 weeks and 14 days notice. Cool heads are needed.

Having thought about this, and with the balance of probabilities, I'd say you were correct on this stephen. The mediation issue is neither here nor there for RM - its a red herring (as was the other ground for injunction that they have now dropped - ie. that the members weren't properly informed of the results of the ballot). They've been in negotiations for 18 months already FFS.
But if they could split/fragment any coherent and co-ordinated action by the union then this would undermine our position. Further, if you can yell "illegal" to enough people then this also can sway public opinion. Jesus, if you banned breast feeding in public some would rather have the kid go hungry than break the law.

Still, if we held the purse strings (to our own purse) we wouldn't need to be asking a High Court judge permission to go take a piss in the first place.

[Dexydog]

I was saying this to people at work this morning.
They just don't get it -the only card RM have left to play is splitting us down the middle.
We have to stay strong, keep our heads, and do things the right way.

[UrbanPirate]

All strike action is a breach of contract.

Ugh you are being facetious and you know it.

A lawful strike and you are protected my your employment rights and the right to strike.
in the event of an injunction, this would then become an unlawful strike. You will no longer be protected.

[Tman]

Btw, Our union has always had the opportunity to go to the High Court to seek legal remedy for RM breaking any of the terms of the Agenda for Growth agreement. One of the questions we should be asking is why it has never done so.

RM isn't a democracy and the union is/was never going to involve the courts in issues like Agenda for Growth.
RM is seeking official adjudication on whether injunctions can be issued to prevent strike action due to alleged errors or omissions in the industrial action procedures, not about who's broken the most agreements or who has the moral high ground.
Employers have always had the right to change or alter agreements, contracts, etc as they see fit, and all the courts can do is check that rules and procedures have been followed.

[rubberbond]

All strike action is a breach of contract.

Ugh you are being facetious and you know it.

A lawful strike and you are protected my your employment rights and the right to strike.
in the event of an injunction, this would then become an unlawful strike. You will no longer be protected.

It's human rights , I believe, right to lawful assembly ,or some such.

[UrbanPirate]

All strike action is a breach of contract.

Ugh you are being facetious and you know it.

A lawful strike and you are protected my your employment rights and the right to strike.
in the event of an injunction, this would then become an unlawful strike. You will no longer be protected.

It's human rights , I believe, right to lawful assembly ,or some such.

no

[tucker12345]

If Royal Mail get there way in court what's the earliest Date we could strike.

[SW17]

Let Royal Mail have their day in court win or loose it doesn't matter, they have lost the workforce and will only delay the inevitable prolonging the companys uncertainty for the future, this has happened once before, it didn't work for them then and it won't work for them now.