Royal Mail Group v CWU [2017] EWHC 2548 (QB) Judgement PDF

[POSTMAN]

http://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/resou ... injunction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Andrew Burns QC and Alice Carse obtained a High Court injunction on behalf of Royal Mail to prevent the Communication Workers’ Union calling its members out on strike in the important pre-Christmas period.

In Royal Mail Group v CWU [2017] EWHC 2548 (QB) Supperstone J granted the Royal Mail’s application for an injunction to prohibit the CWU from calling its members out on strike until the parties exhausted contractual dispute resolution procedures in a legally enforceable collective agreement. The Judge rejected CWU’s argument that Royal Mail had waited too long to invoke the external mediation procedure on the basis that it had not referred the dispute to mediation ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. In his judgment Supperstone J stated that CWU’s call for strike action was unlawful because it was in continuing breach of its contractual obligation not to call for strike action until the external mediation process had been exhausted.

The Court applied the principles of contractual interpretation from Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 and PSA v Secretary of the Treasury [2014] 87 NSWLR 4 - an Australian industrial court case which held that “the construction should be one which contributes to a sensible industrial outcome”. The Judge held that it did not view, make “business common sense” and is unlikely to contribute to “a sensible industrial outcome” for parties to a disagreement to be denied the opportunity to refer the matter to external mediation unless the reference is made immediately or very shortly after one month of the “discussions” commencing.

Given the severe financial and logistical consequences of strike action for Royal Mail, the Judge found that damages were not an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience was clearly in favour of granting the injunction.

You can read the full judgement (He said-She said) here...
http://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/asset ... gment_.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[loyalsnail]

So the statement made by the CWU that judgement was granted based on who would stand to lose most from the strike is proven to be false.

The Judge found the CWU to be in breach of the agreement plain and simple and considered strike action and payment of damages thereafter to not be feasible due to the huge financial loss any strike action would invite on Royal Mail.

[wannabeek]

Well the union did brilliantly then in getting RM to legally commit to talks immediately. They've apparently been trying to get them to do that for 18 months and it took a High Court case to get them to promise to sit down and talk at last.

I reckon this High Court judgement could actually prove to be in our favour because of that.

[wandle]

Well the union did brilliantly then in getting RM to legally commit to talks immediately. They've apparently been trying to get them to do that for 18 months and it took a High Court case to get them to promise to sit down and talk at last.

I reckon this High Court judgement could actually prove to be in our favour because of that.

The judge stated that the parties have a "legally enforceable contractual agreement".

Has the implication of this really sunk in with critics of the agreement the CWU got with Royal Mail (in 2013) ?

No outsourcing / franchising of parts of the business is a commitment that Royal Mail most definitely cannot go back on !!! Now the CWU needs to get tough in the mediation process, and insist that the absolute minimum we will accept is a 10 year extension of all legal protections before concessions on any other issue will be countenanced.

[fishtank]

Has the implication of this really sunk in with critics of the agreement the CWU got with Royal Mail (in 2013) ?

No outsourcing / franchising of parts of the business is a commitment that Royal Mail most definitely cannot go back on !!!

You haven't read the small print.
That legally enforceable document isn't worth the paper it's written on because it also contains legally enforceable escape clauses the biggest one of which is the simple affordability of the protections. Just because a judge says that one part of an agreement holds up doesn't make the whole document worth anything.

[rogersh]

Has the implication of this really sunk in with critics of the agreement the CWU got with Royal Mail (in 2013) ?

No outsourcing / franchising of parts of the business is a commitment that Royal Mail most definitely cannot go back on !!!

You haven't read the small print.
That legally enforceable document isn't worth the paper it's written on because it also contains legally enforceable escape clauses the biggest one of which is the simple affordability of the protections. Just because a judge says that one part of an agreement holds up doesn't make the whole document worth anything.

FT is this the escape clause in the small print you refer to ?

10. DURATION

10.4 The Company shall be entitled to notify the CWU at any time that any or all of
the Protections will no longer continue, if any of the following exceptional
circumstances apply:


10.4.3 in the event that the Company believes on reasonable grounds that any
part of the business to which a Protection applies has ceased to be, or is
likely to cease being, financially sustainable;

If not could you clarify.

[fishtank]

It's part of it yes, there's also a caveat involving industrial action. As you can see it's very simple for the business to cite sustainability or even potential sustainability if they wanted to withdraw any of the protections.

The truth is as it's always been that what protects us in reality is our collective strength not a legal document with more holes than a string vest. The legal protections were from our point of view nothing more than window dressing that has unfortunately come back to bite us on the arse and undermine our bargaining position. Unions shouldn't place any faith in the judiciary for protection and unions shouldn't attempt to con their membership into believing that anything other than a show of strength will defend their terms and conditions.

We shouldn't have signed the legal protections in 2013 it was a lose/lose scenario. I said it then and I'll repeat it now, If you choose to play the legal card you better have deep pockets and a lift home.

[rogersh]

It's part of it yes, there's also a caveat involving industrial action. As you can see it's very simple for the business to cite sustainability or even potential sustainability if they wanted to withdraw any of the protections.

The truth is as it's always been that what protects us in reality is our collective strength not a legal document with more holes than a string vest. The legal protections were from our point of view nothing more than window dressing that has unfortunately come back to bite us on the arse and undermine our bargaining position. Unions shouldn't place any faith in the judiciary for protection and unions shouldn't attempt to con their membership into believing that anything other than a show of strength will defend their terms and conditions.

We shouldn't have signed the legal protections in 2013 it was a lose/lose scenario. I said it then and I'll repeat it now, If you choose to play the legal card you better have deep pockets and a lift home.

This is an example from the agenda for growth agreement & hypothetically if Royal Mail began all new employees on zero hour contracts NOW citing affordability/sustainability as the reason would they not have to justify that claim.


3. PROTECTIONS

3.1.5 No Employee will be engaged on a zero-hours contract. This means
that every Employee will be employed under a contract of employment
providing for mutuality of obligation, and every contract of
employment will specify a minimum number of hours for which the
Employee will be available for work and for which the Employee will
be paid whether or not work is provided.

Surely until the the company is at the stage where sustainability is an issue then the CWU could challenge any change to protections in the agreement.
Alternatively if there was no AFG agreement would RM have made changes to protections at liberty, are we really better off without it ?

The CWU have stated RM are ignoring the AFG & like many I see protections in the agreement & wonder why these alleged breaches are allowed to continue.

Note; At our RDC they have circa 60 staff on one month rolling contracts so perhaps they are heading in the zero hours direction !

[fishtank]

It's too easy to make a case on sustainability, the letters business is technically loss making...that's unsustainable. You could argue that the entire USO is unsustainable.

The reason the business has not moved more rapidly to reduce our terms and conditions is because of our collective strength and the need to implement changes to the business which requires staff engagement. The biggest game changer has been the strike ballot but not the threat of strikes. I think they knew all along they had that covered. What the result of the strike ballot did was show the business how much it has lost the trust of the staff and I think that has shocked senior management.

That's what's brought them back to the table seeking a deal not the threat of strike action or an impotent set of legal protections.

[rogersh]

It's too easy to make a case on sustainability, the letters business is technically loss making...that's unsustainable. You could argue that the entire USO is unsustainable.

The reason the business has not moved more rapidly to reduce our terms and conditions is because of our collective strength and the need to implement changes to the business which requires staff engagement. The biggest game changer has been the strike ballot but not the threat of strikes. I think they knew all along they had that covered. What the result of the strike ballot did was show the business how much it has lost the trust of the staff and I think that has shocked senior management.

That's what's brought them back to the table seeking a deal not the threat of strike action or an impotent set of legal protections.

Perhaps I worded my previous post incorrectly... "Alternatively if there was no AFG agreement would RM have made changes to protections at liberty, are we really better off without it ?"...Of course if there were no AFG agreement the protections would not be in place to change.

I would agree with you that the ballot result is crucial, However the question in the ballot "Are you prepared to take part in strike action?" so if 89.1% voted yes does that not mean a threat of strike action exists.

Anyway the AFG is up for review in 2019 - Is this the only agreement that CWU are looking to extend as it contains terms & conditions that are under threat.