mybackhurts wrote:Not going in tomorrow, familys life and my life at risk with royal mail's negligence
Good for you.
If anyone in your household has symptoms, you can get a note online to legitimately cover you for at least 2 weeks.
Even if they were mild symptoms that didn't turn out to be CV19, bit of a cough, doubt there will be any comeback for being worried over all the conflicting advice mate....
Wild Rover wrote:Supposed to wash our hands every 20-30 minutes, so I propose we return to the DO every 20-30 minutes to do just that. That will create chaos for RM, but nobody will feel "dirty" and it's in keeping within safety measures issued by all and sundry.
Fully agree. It’s not walking out, it’s doing the job as set out by them. It doesn’t matter if you’re on a HCT just round the corner or 30 miles away on a rural, return to the office. Repeat till the end of your shift.
I give it a week before RM are more amenable to the demands.
Time to start playing these bastards at their own game. If washing hands is the 'gold standard' then we will simply be forced to return to the DO...MULTIPLE TIMES!!
There can be no recourse for action if we are following RMs instructions.
do you get paid for self isolating? digusted with the D2D situation, union in our work has agreed for us to do them, not only that, but put them in ur frames on Monday every slot, WTF? tenemants 0/1, 0/2 how you meant to be get 6 D2Ds in their that be 12 and get ur mail in, the mails gonna get caught up in the D2D no only that no nestling, its an absoulete joke the place, its getting worse the ideas, how is any of this helping
Molly2005 wrote:Sick of this, Bolton North office social distancing non exist ant, no hand sanitiser, RM, don't give a f**k about you or your families health, I would rather walk out and lose my job than my life
Manchester mail centre is no different mate...no 2 metre rule if you try someone walks passed you.. boss don’t care they just want the job done and don’t care because they are staying away from the staff.. union doing nothing but talk really why did we expect any thing else from our amazing CEO.
Top union guys get on social media.... go to big celebrity’s ...news reporters.. local mps get the message out there.. get area union reps to take photos or videos showing what we are telling them.. if Royal Mail not interested get it to the public
Grumpypostie wrote:Top union guys get on social media.... go to big celebrity’s ...news reporters.. local mps get the message out there.. get area union reps to take photos or videos showing what we are telling them.. if Royal Mail not interested get it to the public
The public should be interested as we are taking this virus to their front doors if we have it.
Thanks GT85 but please don't just leave it here - we need to act on this now!
Surely we just need someone (in CWU legal dept?) to provide a clear and concise summary of this that we can (if we choose) print off and present to our DOM
Already struggling to work due to anxiety as a result of all that is going on, and these developments aren't helping. I'm scared of bringing the virus back to my family, who are otherwise at home and massively unlikely to catch it. Appalling, almost inhuman stuff from Rico & Co.
Very interesting, does Terry knows about it?
Anyone here who can send this link to him would be doing us all a favour, I hope.
Employment Right Act 1996
Section 44 Health and Safety Cases
(1) An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that —
(a) having been designated by the employer to carry out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work, the employee carried out (or proposed to carry out) any such activities,
(b) being a representative of workers on matters of health and safety at work or member of a safety committee —
(i) in accordance with arrangements established under or by virtue of any enactment, or
(ii) by reason of being acknowledged as such by the employer, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a representative or a member of such a committee,
(c) being an employee at a place where –
i) there was no such representative or safety committee, or
(ii) there was such a representative or safety committee but it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise the matter by those means, he brought to his employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety,
(d) in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work, or
(e) in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, he took (or proposed to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or other persons from the danger.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e) whether steps which an employee took (or proposed to take) were appropriate is to be judged by reference to all the circumstances including, in particular, his knowledge and the facilities and advice available to him at the time.
(3) An employee is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment on the ground specified in subsection (1)(e) if the employer shows that it was (or would have been) so negligent for the employee to take the steps which he took (or proposed to take) that a reasonable employer might have treated him as the employer did.
(4) Except where an employee is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of section 197, Part X does not apply to the dismissal, this section does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of that Part).
NOTE: The right not to be subjected to a detriment (including dismissal) for ‘asserting a statutory legal right’ is also expressed in Section 29 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. Under Section 29, the protection applies where an employee has made a claim to enforce a right, or has alleged that the employer has infringed their right in some way. It doesn’t matter that no right has actually been infringed. Neither does it matter whether or not the employee actually had any ‘right’. The key point is whether the employee, acting in good faith, asserted to have a relevant statutory right.
olilew wrote:This is astounding! They should now call us out!
Ok off you go on your picket line with ya brazier and banner! Then what? This guy is a narcissist and by doing that your giving him the fuel to turn royal mail into the two bit company he is looking for! The plan this nutter is following has wearing industrial action built into it and by not doing it makes it more frustrating for him that's why before this world crisis he was bullying his way through with executive action hoping it would spark unofficial industrial action so he could (and we have already witnessed it) use the court to finish the union by trying to bankrupt it! Freeze assets and sue the CWU for loss of revenue etc! He has no regard for the workforce (which is bloody obvious) and no regard for the unprecedented situation the country and world is in at the moment and for the safety of the workforce and the UK public he needs to be taken out of the equation he a very dangerous man!
Very interesting, does Terry knows about it?
Anyone here who can send this link to him would be doing us all a favour, I hope.
Employment Right Act 1996
Section 44 Health and Safety Cases
(1) An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that —
(a) having been designated by the employer to carry out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work, the employee carried out (or proposed to carry out) any such activities,
(b) being a representative of workers on matters of health and safety at work or member of a safety committee —
(i) in accordance with arrangements established under or by virtue of any enactment, or
(ii) by reason of being acknowledged as such by the employer, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a representative or a member of such a committee,
(c) being an employee at a place where –
i) there was no such representative or safety committee, or
(ii) there was such a representative or safety committee but it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise the matter by those means, he brought to his employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety,
(d) in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work, or
(e) in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, he took (or proposed to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or other persons from the danger.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e) whether steps which an employee took (or proposed to take) were appropriate is to be judged by reference to all the circumstances including, in particular, his knowledge and the facilities and advice available to him at the time.
(3) An employee is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment on the ground specified in subsection (1)(e) if the employer shows that it was (or would have been) so negligent for the employee to take the steps which he took (or proposed to take) that a reasonable employer might have treated him as the employer did.
(4) Except where an employee is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of section 197, Part X does not apply to the dismissal, this section does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of that Part).
NOTE: The right not to be subjected to a detriment (including dismissal) for ‘asserting a statutory legal right’ is also expressed in Section 29 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. Under Section 29, the protection applies where an employee has made a claim to enforce a right, or has alleged that the employer has infringed their right in some way. It doesn’t matter that no right has actually been infringed. Neither does it matter whether or not the employee actually had any ‘right’. The key point is whether the employee, acting in good faith, asserted to have a relevant statutory right.
Yes i think 1 of them mentioned in there press conferene.
Very interesting, does Terry knows about it?
Anyone here who can send this link to him would be doing us all a favour, I hope.
Where did you think the whole 'if you don't feel safe you should walk out, we'll back you up' came from?
Honestly guys......
What you have to understand though is that obviously you can't just rock up at your work one day with a hangover and declare the place unsafe waving section 44 around.
There is a burden of proof, an expectation that the employer has an opportunity to put right any issues and a limit on what is reasonably practical.
But the single most important fact is section 44 is in almost every case only used after you've been sacked, at an Employment tribunal to try to get your job back.
When the union said they would back you they meant by offering legal support after you've been binned.
What did CWU expect ?
They handed the workforce like a sacrificial lamb to Rico stating we are an emergency service.
CWU got it wrong
We are nothing like the NHS ,Police, Firefighters
We just deliver mostly non essential consumables and maybe the odd important item
The CWU are too slow with their demands ,unfortunately I feel until there are mass infections in DOs& MCs ,I can’t see Royal Mail budging.
Business as normal