High Court Date Thursday! 10.30am

[stephen500]

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.

You are wrong, Rm is not going to court re the ballot, they are seeking an injunction re the Agenda for growth agreement and the suggestion we have not followed that legal agreement . It is nothing to do with the trade union act 2016

[charlie1]

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

If it's 5 weeks of mediation and then a further 2 weeks for notification of strike dates, it would leave the whole of December open to strikes. That's pretty much the busiest weeks of Xmas. Also January is normally nearly as busy in my office with all the Sales on.

[kath17265]

Rolling 1 day strike in December is all that will be needed

[gb93]

It is all over boys & girls we have lost & RM have won.
No point in carrying on we will only harm ourselves.
No fight to pick, listen to our NEW voice of reason poster.

[cloherty1976]

Share price rising this morning. Must be betting on how high court decision will go!

[Phantom]

It is all over boys & girls we have lost & RM have won.
No point in carrying on we will only harm ourselves.
No fight to pick, listen to our NEW voice of reason poster.

It's a long way from being over - if we lose the court case, we'll just wait till all the delay tactics have finished and then we'll strike. Whether it's now or in a few months time, we will strike.

[peterloo]

It is all over boys & girls we have lost & RM have won.
No point in carrying on we will only harm ourselves.
No fight to pick, listen to our NEW voice of reason poster.

It's a long way from being over - if we lose the court case, we'll just wait till all the delay tactics have finished and then we'll strike. Whether it's now or in a few months time, we will strike.

Wasn't he taking the p**s?

[gb93]

It is all over boys & girls we have lost & RM have won.
No point in carrying on we will only harm ourselves.
No fight to pick, listen to our NEW voice of reason poster.

It's a long way from being over - if we lose the court case, we'll just wait till all the delay tactics have finished and then we'll strike. Whether it's now or in a few months time, we will strike.

Wasn't he taking the p**s?

Yeah I was

[Dorset Plodder]

Wasn't he taking the p**s?

Yeah I was

Always thought we need a more sarcastic imogee? This one's not too bad.

[Rumple]

What's the betting were briefed in work Friday morning to say the strike is deemed illegal and we are to attend work as normal.
Got a feeling that the CWU will be ordered into the 5 weeks mediation, and if that is the case how naive of our union leaders to;
A) not understand the agreement they signed and
B) sign the bloody agreement in the first place

Nevertheless, Royal Fail either make great concessions in the negotiations or suffer the consequences of strike action closer to Christmas.

Interesting point that if the judge, or any of his family, hold shares in RM then surely it'd be a conflict of interests.

[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.

You are wrong, Rm is not going to court re the ballot, they are seeking an injunction re the Agenda for growth agreement and the suggestion we have not followed that legal agreement . It is nothing to do with the trade union act 2016

You've misunderstood. Various posters have said that the CWU should have taken RM to court for breaking agreements in the past, and that the judge will take that into account in the current ruling, but he won't. He'll just adjudicate on whether RM or CWU have both/neither followed the prescribed procedures leading up to the Yes strike ballot and whether the strike is legal and lawful.

[hans solo]

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.

and we have a sitting rule 13

[LaggyBand]

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.

You are wrong, Rm is not going to court re the ballot, they are seeking an injunction re the Agenda for growth agreement and the suggestion we have not followed that legal agreement . It is nothing to do with the trade union act 2016

You've misunderstood. Various posters have said that the CWU should have taken RM to court for breaking agreements in the past, and that the judge will take that into account in the current ruling, but he won't. He'll just adjudicate on whether RM or CWU have both/neither followed the prescribed procedures leading up to the Yes strike ballot and whether the strike is legal and lawful.

I think one potential train of thought that may be considered tomorrow is:

If this agenda for growth clause is the basis of the injunction claim, CWU could say RM did not have the required intention to create legal relations for that agreement to be actionable in court, because they have been breaking other clauses in that agreement.

And then the fact that CWU have not acted on these breaches may demonstrate the lack of intention for both parties, not just RM.

Let's see if it's right tomorrow.

[thekiddykid]

Rolling 1 day strike in December is all that will be needed

Processing day 1, drivers day 2, delivery day 3 starting first week of December rolling days. Utter chaos by the second week. That is what we need to do should the result go against us tomorrow

[UrbanPirate]

Genuine question so no need for people to get aggy.

What parts of the Agenda for growth agreement have RM been in breach of?

Links, examples and evidence welcome.