TALKS OVER POSTAL STRIKE BREAK DOWN

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Why does the Sentinel Have such long urls

Latest talks to resolve the dispute between postal workers and Royal Mail have broken down.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) claims Royal Mail withdrew its offer to carry out an independent review at the "eleventh hour".

Midlands regional secretary Lee Barron said workers were not on the picket line at the Burslem delivery depot yesterday, because a meeting was being held with members.

He said: "We got a deal, and we held a meeting with our members to put this to them, but at the eleventh hour Royal Mail withdrew."

The walkout is over the suspension of 12 postal workers amid allegations of bullying. Five have now had their suspensions lifted, but remain off work.

A spokesman for Royal Mail said: "The offer we made for the appointment of an appeals manager remains on the table."

[andy2007]

What's the point of appointing an Appeals Manager, when he/she will be an RM manager?
I was under the impression, that the CWU wanted an INDEPENDANT appeal hearing. How can an RM manager be independant in a case like this?

[warlord]

What's the point of appointing an Appeals Manager, when he/she will be an RM manager?
I was under the impression, that the CWU wanted an INDEPENDANT appeal hearing. How can an RM manager be independant in a case like this?

*************************************************************************************************
R.M. desperately need to win points in this dispute. To appoint one of their 'kind' to oversee the appeal stinks to high heaven.
No fair play here, but what else could we expect from a lineage of back stabbing promotion seeking tyrants.
R.M. and it's grovelling ringmasters are glory boys.
These are the people who will weep like a baby if they cannot get their own way, hence the strategy to appoint one of their own bias representatives who is one of the 'show me the money' trolls.
I also believe that R.M. are playing a waiting game.
Keep the strike solid Burslem . Justice WILL be done.

[jemima]

I don't see why RM would have a problem with outsourcing dispute resolution processes. They can't want this kind of thing to interfere with the day-to-day running of the business, and it's not as though dispute resolution is a core part of RM's service portfolio. This is very different from pay/pension negotiations, which of course need to be conducted directly by RM management.

If it's a question of points, they could be arguing that any costs associated with the reviews should be shared by RM and the CWU depending on the outcomes - like a court might award costs to either the complainant or the defendant.

[andy2007]

I don't see why RM would have a problem with outsourcing dispute resolution processes. They can't want this kind of thing to interfere with the day-to-day running of the business, and it's not as though dispute resolution is a core part of RM's service portfolio. This is very different from pay/pension negotiations, which of course need to be conducted directly by RM management.

If it's a question of points, they could be arguing that any costs associated with the reviews should be shared by RM and the CWU depending on the outcomes - like a court might award costs to either the complainant or the defendant.

Thast's a good idea. Why not split the cost up. It would remove any remaining excuses for RM to refuse to allow an independant hearing.

I can't see it convincing them to do so though. The fact is, that they have something to hide. If they didn't. They wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it "in house".

[norbert]

I don't see why RM would have a problem with outsourcing dispute resolution processes. They can't want this kind of thing to interfere with the day-to-day running of the business, and it's not as though dispute resolution is a core part of RM's service portfolio. This is very different from pay/pension negotiations, which of course need to be conducted directly by RM management.

If it's a question of points, they could be arguing that any costs associated with the reviews should be shared by RM and the CWU depending on the outcomes - like a court might award costs to either the complainant or the defendant.

Thast's a good idea. Why not split the cost up. It would remove any remaining excuses for RM to refuse to allow an independent hearing.

I can't see it convincing them to do so though. The fact is, that they have something to hide. If they didn't. They wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it "in house".

I believe that Independent Hearings have a Barrister to chair the panels , that's what it all boils down to .Also any Solictor would draw adverse inferences from suspensions "suddenly " being lifted . RM are arrogant enough to think they can do criminal beyond all reasonable doubt burden of proof with dodgy fit -ups , but when you've vexed cases where most people would smell a rat , judgement can be made on the balance of probabilities .

In a ex -nationalized Industry which went the way RM is going, we went on 3 things 1 . Is it "straight "? 2 . Is it bent but they're trying to make it look straight? 3 . Just plain bent ??

Lord Sawyer suggested Independent Panels, better than everybody in the Car Park ?? , but RM are increasingly arrogant and think only they know best . They end up hiring spivvy solicitors that'd try and get David Blunkett a driving licence in ET's to cover for their corrupt ways , just high handed , siege mentality "management " :lfo :lfo :cfo :cfo
-You wouldn't expect anything thing less with these two in charge ??, that went out in the early 90's that style of management !