One absolute sure and solid reason to NOT vote yes!

[welshy808]

If they want change they MUST have an agreement, otherwise they are making changes to your contract without consent and that is illegal and can be challenged in court.

Sadly that's not true. Employers do have the right to change contracts of employment as they see fit. The only proviso is that sufficient notice (or financial compensation) of the change must be given.

Yes, afraid so

They cannot change your terms of contract without your consent or agreement with the union through collective bargaining


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... G_10028079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"What or who can change a contract of employment?
Either you or your employer might want to change your employment contract. However, neither you or your employer can change your employment contract without each other's agreement. Changes should normally be made after negotiation and agreement.
Changes to employment contracts could be made by:
agreement between you and your employer
collective agreement - this is a negotiation between your employer and a trade union or staff association
implication - that is through a change in long standing custom and practice (for example if your employer allows all employees a day off each year for New Year's Eve)
If a collective agreement makes a change to employment contracts, the change will still apply to you even if you are not a member of the trade union or staff association."

They could however make you redundant, pay you redundancy and the re-employ you on new terms and conditions.......

[Steviea34]

If they want change they MUST have an agreement, otherwise they are making changes to your contract without consent and that is illegal and can be challenged in court.

Sadly that's not true. Employers do have the right to change contracts of employment as they see fit. The only proviso is that sufficient notice (or financial compensation) of the change must be given.

Yes, afraid so

They cannot change your terms of contract without your consent or agreement with the union through collective bargaining


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... G_10028079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"What or who can change a contract of employment?
Either you or your employer might want to change your employment contract. However, neither you or your employer can change your employment contract without each other's agreement. Changes should normally be made after negotiation and agreement.
Changes to employment contracts could be made by:
agreement between you and your employer
collective agreement - this is a negotiation between your employer and a trade union or staff association
implication - that is through a change in long standing custom and practice (for example if your employer allows all employees a day off each year for New Year's Eve)
If a collective agreement makes a change to employment contracts, the change will still apply to you even if you are not a member of the trade union or staff association."

They could however make you redundant, pay you redundancy and the re-employ you on new terms and conditions.......

Not sure how changing your attendance times is a change of contract though, what other things do you think maybe considered as a breech
of contract?, not D2D as these are a supplement- new machinery - dont think so, so what else is there , my contract is for a 5 day week , 40 hours
would of thought these changes would not breech any of the above

[BELIAL]

If they want change they MUST have an agreement, otherwise they are making changes to your contract without consent and that is illegal and can be challenged in court.

Sadly that's not true. Employers do have the right to change contracts of employment as they see fit. The only proviso is that sufficient notice (or financial compensation) of the change must be given.

Yes, afraid so

They cannot change your terms of contract without your consent or agreement with the union through collective bargaining


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... G_10028079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"What or who can change a contract of employment?
Either you or your employer might want to change your employment contract. However, neither you or your employer can change your employment contract without each other's agreement. Changes should normally be made after negotiation and agreement.
Changes to employment contracts could be made by:
agreement between you and your employer
collective agreement - this is a negotiation between your employer and a trade union or staff association
implication - that is through a change in long standing custom and practice (for example if your employer allows all employees a day off each year for New Year's Eve)
If a collective agreement makes a change to employment contracts, the change will still apply to you even if you are not a member of the trade union or staff association."

They could however make you redundant, pay you redundancy and the re-employ you on new terms and conditions.......

Killed the bullshitters stone dead Well done Welshy

[welshy808]

If they want change they MUST have an agreement, otherwise they are making changes to your contract without consent and that is illegal and can be challenged in court.

Sadly that's not true. Employers do have the right to change contracts of employment as they see fit. The only proviso is that sufficient notice (or financial compensation) of the change must be given.

Yes, afraid so

They cannot change your terms of contract without your consent or agreement with the union through collective bargaining


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... G_10028079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"What or who can change a contract of employment?
Either you or your employer might want to change your employment contract. However, neither you or your employer can change your employment contract without each other's agreement. Changes should normally be made after negotiation and agreement.
Changes to employment contracts could be made by:
agreement between you and your employer
collective agreement - this is a negotiation between your employer and a trade union or staff association
implication - that is through a change in long standing custom and practice (for example if your employer allows all employees a day off each year for New Year's Eve)
If a collective agreement makes a change to employment contracts, the change will still apply to you even if you are not a member of the trade union or staff association."

They could however make you redundant, pay you redundancy and the re-employ you on new terms and conditions.......

Not sure how changing your attendance times is a change of contract though, what other things do you think maybe considered as a breech
of contract?, not D2D as these are a supplement- new machinery - dont think so, so what else is there , my contract is for a 5 day week , 40 hours
would of thought these changes would not breech any of the above

A change of attendance times is undoubtedly a breach of contract, just check the website. By the way this web site is officially owned by your employers. Royal Mail is fully owned by The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Island.
D2D at the moment are paid separately therefore to not pay for them under Executive Action would definitely be a Breach of contract.
new machinery would not be a breach as this is covered under phase 3 of the 2007 agreement.

It pays to know your contract as even Royal Mail has to abide by it, The CWU should use employment law to protect our terms and conditions, not bargain them away. If the negotiators didn't talk D2D then they would not have been on the table.
Pro Rata My ARSE

[Tman]

They cannot change your terms of contract without your consent or agreement with the union through collective bargaining

Meanwhile, back in the real world of anyone from Rolls Royce to BA to RM, things are a little different...

Killed the bullshitters stone dead Well done Welshy

Still carrying those scars, eh?

[Steviea34]

If they want change they MUST have an agreement, otherwise they are making changes to your contract without consent and that is illegal and can be challenged in court.

Sadly that's not true. Employers do have the right to change contracts of employment as they see fit. The only proviso is that sufficient notice (or financial compensation) of the change must be given.

Yes, afraid so

They cannot change your terms of contract without your consent or agreement with the union through collective bargaining


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... G_10028079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"What or who can change a contract of employment?
Either you or your employer might want to change your employment contract. However, neither you or your employer can change your employment contract without each other's agreement. Changes should normally be made after negotiation and agreement.
Changes to employment contracts could be made by:
agreement between you and your employer
collective agreement - this is a negotiation between your employer and a trade union or staff association
implication - that is through a change in long standing custom and practice (for example if your employer allows all employees a day off each year for New Year's Eve)
If a collective agreement makes a change to employment contracts, the change will still apply to you even if you are not a member of the trade union or staff association."

They could however make you redundant, pay you redundancy and the re-employ you on new terms and conditions.......

Not saying your wrong - but begs the question - why did we
agree to way forward in2007 & later starts the first time round

[BELIAL]

They cannot change your terms of contract without your consent or agreement with the union through collective bargaining

Meanwhile, back in the real world of anyone from Rolls Royce to BA to RM, things are a little different...

Killed the bullshitters stone dead Well done Welshy

Still carrying those scars, eh?

Sorry chum you've lost me there. The guy has given you UK employment LAW chapter and verse . You might not like it, but it is the law.

[billypants]

When asking an old boy about this sort of thing years ago he replied " I'd rather die on my feet then live my whole life on my knees" that's stuck with me ever since, fight for what you truly believe, don't just roll over.

[Tman]

Sorry chum you've lost me there.

I'm sure I haven't.
left: Killed the bullshitters stone dead Well done Welshy is just a tad more vehemently gleeful than the usual note of general disagreement in these threads...

The guy has given you UK employment LAW chapter and verse . You might not like it, but it is the law.

Many things may well be the LAW, but that unfortunately doesn't necessarily mean companies will abide by the LAW. You may have noticed BA's current dispute involves changing worker's terms and conditions without thier consent, but I haven't heard of BA's hierarchy being accused or charged with breaking any LAW. Chum.

[BELIAL]

Sorry chum you've lost me there.

I'm sure I haven't.
left: Killed the bullshitters stone dead Well done Welshy is just a tad more vehemently gleeful than the usual note of general disagreement in these threads...

The guy has given you UK employment LAW chapter and verse . You might not like it, but it is the law.

Many things may well be the LAW, but that unfortunately doesn't necessarily mean companies will abide by the LAW. You may have noticed BA's current dispute involves changing worker's terms and conditions without thier consent, but I haven't heard of BA's hierarchy being accused or charged with breaking any LAW. Chum.

That is a different question,and a very good one.
It raises the point of why our union bureaucrats seem to be complicit in undermining our terms and conditions against the rule of law.Very pleased you highlighted this critical point, though I must admit I am pleasantly surprised as well,brother

[opgpat]

Many things may well be the LAW, but that unfortunately doesn't necessarily mean companies will abide by the LAW. You may have noticed BA's current dispute involves changing worker's terms and conditions without thier consent, but I haven't heard of BA's hierarchy being accused or charged with breaking any LAW. Chum.

Tman do you even watch the news? There was actually a BA court case a few weeks ago in February -bv here's a link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8523758.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The judge found there was no need for BA to consult Unite/workers because the changes were to staff numbers and NEW contracts. BA themselves sdmitted the changes did not effect individuals contracts and therefore were legal. BA are therefore implying a contract change WOULD be illegal without consultation. The judge fully accepted this argument.

Clearly all we need to prove in court is:
that a national finish time of 3pm after decades of 12:30pm on a Sat is a contract change.
that the withdrawl of payment for work to zero after decades of staff earning 25quid pw is a contract change.
that uncapping outside delivery work from 3 1/2 hours to unlimited after decades of 3 1/2 due to H&S is a contract change.

What you need to be aware of is that contracts DO NOT have to be in writing. A long-standing set-up becomes a contract in law if it becomes the official normal working proceedure. Therefore early Sat finishes ARE part of our contract. d2d payment IS part of our contract and 3 1/3 hr max outside delivery time IS part of our contract. Not just small parts but actually the MOST important for most posties. We would win a case in the HIgh Court over EA on these three counts WITHOUT A DOUBT.

[Tman]

The judge summed it up thus-

Mr Justice Sir Christopher Holland said he had made his judgement based in the light of the airline's financial position.

"If the crew [numbers] materially and fairly contribute to the preservation of BA and more importantly for present purposes job security and pay, how can I condemn the less-than-extreme changes as unreasonable?"

So far from me "not watching the news" it seems you didn't properly read your own link!

He threw out Unite's case on the above grounds; why would he then (or any other judge) think asking posties to deliver more/work later would then count as "unreasonable"?

I don't know how long you've been in RM, but changing work-loads, start times, finish times and even days off have been common in my time, and I haven't yet seen the CWU challenging the legality in court even when those changes have been most unpopular.

{It's also common to see in newspaper's "Can we help?" legal advice columns where people write in asking if the shop/factory/office which employs them can make them work longer days/later finishes/Sundays/other additional duties/etc but I've never yet seen the reply of "you don't have to change anything, and it's the law".
Usually the reply is "compromise if you can, but as a last resort you'll have to leave". }

"Custom and practice" in RM has been to alter times and work loads as required, so it's a bit late now to challenge RM's supposed "right" to do it.

Good luck if you take it to court; you'll definitely need it.

[borders]

in some respects i agree with Tman here. i work in Distribution/Warehouse and changes in our workload and the content plus start and finish times is literally a common occurance. at first my shift was 2pm till 10pm then they changed it to 3pm to 11pm and now it is 3pm till 11.10pm mon to thurs and 3pm till 10.20pm on a fri.we are expected to help out in more areas than before due to less people and less overtime. i can remember when i first started that tippers just tipped and the drivers just drove etc.

[slickrick]

Had A Union Meeting today !! Union Rep was saying what a good deal it was ??? Has he been BRAINw=WASHED ??????????????????????????????

[welshy808]

Tman,
I am not saying it is impossible for an employer to change a contract. I'm simply pointing out that our employer would need to either pay redundancy or face possible breach of contract proceedings. I think it is highly unlikely that the government would wish to end up in court.
The difference between BA and RM at the moment is that BA could argue that the changes were needed to save the company which the judge could find as, an overwhelming business reason.
This is not quite the case in RM yet, even taking the pension deficit into account, as the share holder is more than capable of covering the deficit.
The changes in D2D for example, raising the cap but continuing to make separate payments whilst increase RM revenue, would not be an overwhelming business reason.
The Saturday attendance, while increasing the use of walk sequencing machines would not be an overwhelming business reason.
That is not to say that the RM lawyers could not bankrupt the Union by trying to impose these changes.

On the point of Sunday working, I have on many an occasion read advice that shop workers cannot be forced to attend on a Sunday.
Just another point of employment law.