A ''No Strike Clause'' in past agreement

[Acca Dacca]

Its been obvious to many of us that Simon Thompson has been deliberately goading us all summer and putting out proposals he knows would lead to action being taken.

We have wondered what his game has been.

Why does he WANT us to strike? Does he want to lower the share price for a takeover? Does he want to use the resulting struggles in the business to justify a takeover with government blessing?

The above reasons are still very much likely possibilities but what is now apparent given the letter that he has just sent the CWU is that the industrial action taken has now made parts of the previous agreement null and void - which explains in part why he seemed to be pushing us into it.

I remember at the time of the agreement some unrest about this particular clause put in

So the question is;

Why on the earth did the union ever agree to any such clause being included in an agreement? An agreement which hinges on not being able to take industrial action is not worth the paper it is written on. Completely useless. It would only made some sort of sense if the no strike clause didnt apply if the IA was due to executive action.

And if the union knew that it existed and striking would cause it to become null and void - how are they going to successfully challenge that part of the agreement being ripped up?

If they agreed to such a clause in the past, they will be expected to agree to something similar in any future agreements ( if we ever get one ) and we will end up in the same boat again.

Agreement not adhered to, executive action to impose change, industrial action called, agreement binned

What a mess.

[Dorset Plodder]

I've always though RM have sharper minds than the CWU .... but that's no surprise because they're obviously able to pay a lot more MONEY. for them.

As someone else said, "We should be asking around other Union Organisations and getting the most EFFECTIVE Negotiators to give us advice, and help us out". Because we're in the fight of our lives and if we lose this dispute we're all going to be facing the most shitty set of T&Cs that any of us have had to deal with.

[roman]

Royal Mail always seem one step ahead of c w u.surely this all should of been looked at with a fine tooth comb after pass misdemeanours that have gone tits up.

[Woody Guthrie]

Something someone fishy put on another forum kind of answers your point..

Royal Mail has attempted to make a great deal out of claiming that they are withdrawing from the legal obligations contained within the Agenda for Growth simply because the union has called national industrial action.

This is just a weak excuse to blame the union for a plan they had long ago decided on., if you read the exception clauses in the legal protections clause C allows them to withdraw if any part covered by them becomes financially unsustainable or even just looks like becoming financially unsustainable so with them claiming to lose £1 million a day they were going to withdraw from them anyway.

The truth is these protections relied more on trust than the law and that has now completely disappeared.

Don't believe the spin.
Solidarity.

[derekm]

probably wrong on this but if I remember royal mail asked for a no strike clause put in but union refused

[roman]

I don’t really understand the full implications of the agreement so can someone explain what does clause e mean ?

[Flashman_]

This no strike clause was put in during a dispute way back around 2013 and agreed by the union. Me and others tried to warn people against it and reject it but the union executive recommended acceptance, so it went though. What a sorry state of affairs, where our own Union accepted a deal that removed our right to strike. Of course the Union could go to court about this as I believe there was also protections for us in the event of executive action, but we all know who the courts will support don't we.

[Clappedoutpostie]

Royal Mail always seem one step ahead of c w u.surely this all should of been looked at with a fine tooth comb after pass misdemeanours that have gone tits up.

They run the company so naturally they will always be one step ahead. I can’t remember blow by blow details of when that agreement was made but possibly it was insisted on by RM to get it over the line. No agreement between the CWU and RM is worth the paper it’s written on at the moment anyway. As has already been said it’s smoke and mirrors on the company’s part to try and make the Union look like fools.

[Acca Dacca]

Something someone fishy put on another forum kind of answers your point..

Royal Mail has attempted to make a great deal out of claiming that they are withdrawing from the legal obligations contained within the Agenda for Growth simply because the union has called national industrial action.

This is just a weak excuse to blame the union for a plan they had long ago decided on., if you read the exception clauses in the legal protections clause C allows them to withdraw if any part covered by them becomes financially unsustainable or even just looks like becoming financially unsustainable so with them claiming to lose £1 million a day they were going to withdraw from them anyway.

The truth is these protections relied more on trust than the law and that has now completely disappeared.

Don't believe the spin.
Solidarity.

Thanks Woody.

How did something so vague and with so much scope pass the union lawyers without at least some sort of agreement of what would constitute 'becoming financially unsustainable' and the sample size? It seems too subjective.

Guess the only way to challenge it is through the court given it is, or is supposed to be, a ''legally binding agreement''

[Woody Guthrie]

My own personal opinion.
Both the union and Royal Mail knew it was practically meaningless from the start.
It was cooked up to make a poor deal look to use their words "groundbreaking".
Challenging it through the courts would always have been a pointless and expensive waste of time.

Royal Mail have hundreds of high price accountants who could make Amazon look financially unsustainable. The union could probably find some kid just out of Uni willing to fight them for lunch money and the bus fare home.

It's best put behind us to be honest.

[Acca Dacca]

Isnt it a problem that RM will insist that any future agreement has the same break clause in it though? I dont see much point in an agreement that can be tossed aside at any moment.

[Martin Walsh]

The Agenda for Growth Agreement put in a number of legal guarantees which has limited the impact from privatisation which other companies have seen.

My wife works for BT , they have broken up the company with open reach etc, they have outsourced work all round the world where it could be done cheaper , they have franchised and they a two tier workforce.

The Agenda for Growth agreement stopped Royal Mail from doing that for 10 years.

There was a clause in the agreement that in the event that the CWU take strike action they could serve notice on the agreement.

The reality is they had to serve notice on the agreement in any case because they want to introduce a two tier workforce with new recruits on 40 hours and 20% less in pay.

It was never a no strike deal, after all we have had 3 ballots prior to these two current ones and if it was not for legal challenges and COVID we would have taken action before now.

Royal Mail have served notice on approximately 20 agreements and it is clear they to slash and burn terms and conditions in the short and long term by reducing the CWU’s agreements and changing the role of reps from negotiations to simply consultation and how to introduce the change.

[Acca Dacca]

The Agenda for Growth Agreement put in a number of legal guarantees which has limited the impact from privatisation which other companies have seen.

My wife works for BT , they have broken up the company with open reach etc, they have outsourced work all round the world where it could be done cheaper , they have franchised and they a two tier workforce.

The Agenda for Growth agreement stopped Royal Mail from doing that for 10 years.

There was a clause in the agreement that in the event that the CWU take strike action they could serve notice on the agreement.

The reality is they had to serve notice on the agreement in any case because they want to introduce a two tier workforce with new recruits on 40 hours and 20% less in pay.

It was never a no strike deal, after all we have had 3 ballots prior to these two current ones and if it was not for legal challenges and COVID we would have taken action before now.

Royal Mail have served notice on approximately 20 agreements and it is clear they to slash and burn terms and conditions in the short and long term by reducing the CWU’s agreements and changing the role of reps from negotiations to simply consultation and how to introduce the change.

You are being a bit clever with your wording there Martin. I never said there was a deal that we couldnt or wouldnt strike.

Thats why It was put as ''no strike clause'' rather than an agreement that we couldnt strike.

What you have said here

''There was a clause in the agreement that in the event that the CWU take strike action they could serve notice on the agreement.''

Means that there essentially was a 'no strike clause'

You say that ''The reality is they had to serve notice on the agreement in any case because they want to introduce a two tier workforce with new recruits on 40 hours and 20% less in pay.''

If they can serve notice on anything they WANT then what is the point in the aforementioned clause? Why does there need to be a clause? There is a difference between wanting to do something and being able to do something after all. Either they are able to serve notice on the agreement because of the clause, they shouldnt be able to serve notice on the agreement or there was never a need for the clause in the first place and they can give notice whenever they want surely?

[groundhog_day]

The reality is they had to serve notice on the agreement in any case because they want to introduce a two tier workforce with new recruits on 40 hours and 20% less in pay.

RM already have a 2-tier workforce. This would make it a 3-tier one.

[k979aaa]

Simon can not even abide with himself in the morning depending which side of the bed he vacated!