Employment Law Department and its role.

[TheBushBaby]

The Employment law department at CWUHQ an interesting entity headed up by the appointed Tony 'Golf' Rupa. Who succeeded Jim Moher. It is often debated that the industrial and Political wings of the union should be joined in the struggle against the employer. But what if We included our Legal wing also. How often do you see a Panellist or a Solicitor take on Royal Mail for example using employment law ? Never !

The 1992 Trade Union and Relations Act (consolidated).

In 1992 The Conservative Government passed a piece of Legislation called the 1992 Trade Unions & Relations Act ( consolidated) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/contentsl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;] . It is a fact that this was to curb how Trade unions conduct industrial action and regulate Trade Union finances. But tucked away in the anti trade union legislation is some protection for Representatives especially at section 145a & 146. These are accessible via an ET1 and can be utilised. This legislation on the whole remains untried and untested as both Union and Employer does not wish to set a legal precedent. But with both sides not wishing to set a legal precedent an out of court settlement can normally be found.

So if you have a rep who has cannot get release or is being persecuted or threatened, providing internal proceedings have been exhausted you can make a claim using this piece of relevant legislation. But my question is why is this not advertised to Reps and give them the confidence to operate in the work place knowing they have some protection ? UNISON for its faults are very up front about it, even issuing a guide for reps [https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploa ... -april.pdf] .

Most cases are turned down.

The Employment law department and its panel of 20 advocates tuen 90% of cases down leaving the dismissed isolated and let down after rightfully paying money into the CWU. The test for all cases passed to CWUHQ is the 50% test passed by a Panelist (Dennis McWilliams) many moons a go. The legal science applied is if a case whether it's
Unfair Dismissal or Discrimination is subjected to the same generic chances of success of 50%. I would like to make it clear that CWUHQ states if the chances of success is less than 50% the case will not attract representation from the CWU. However, if they do take on the case they do reserve the right to pull representation at any time.

This leaves many anomalies. How do you measure 50% ? How can you apply the same success criteria to different complaints to a tribunal ? How can you apply the 50 % to a different case and different complaints when for example an unfair dismissal case, the burden of proof rests with the Respondent, yet under sexual discrimination the burden of proof falls on the Complainant ? One size cannot fit all in the legal world, that is exactly why We have hearings.

Disclosure of Documents and Information.

A Branch may send a bundle off to CWUHQ only to be turned down. But a bundle will always be incomplete despite giving the impression it is complete. It should be explained that once an ET1 has been filled and an ET3 returned by the Respondent, Case Management can take place between parties in request for further clarification on issues and more importantly documents that have never been viewed internally. For example in Royal Mail no Manger farts with out contacting the Gestapo HR. The Complainant has the right to see what was said between say an Appeal Manager and HR. This maybe for many reasons, but you could argue many angles about HR's involvement in the Conduct code. To an experienced Rep whom would know their is no role of HR in the Conduct Code and it could be argued the dismissal is unfair because of an outside influence.Another example the complainant could request communications between the 1st line Manager and the 2nd Line Manager in passing the case up. But how many times do We see CWUHQ make these representations to Royal Mail before pulling up the 50% draw Bridge on our members. I would argue none. And why not CWUHQ could do it as We have seen before representation can be withdrawn at any time.

Preliminary Hearing.

As We have already established Representation from CWUHQ can be withdrawn at any point in time. It is never been suggested We could even part-represent members. The preliminary hearing is crucial and is the hearing that determines and orders what documents should be disclosed and when. Its at this hearing the chances are if either side has been sluggish in exchanging documents that parties can be bought to account. These documents will be crucial in potentially revealing new evidence that The Respondent has not acted accordingly in cases. SO why is it Representation is turned down before this hearing takes place with half a deck of cards ?

The £20 million.

That's right £20 million is given to the CWU each year for facilities We are told year on year. But how is that allocated ? Without going of onto another analysis about National Officers, the PEC and Divisional reps. We do have to take notice, as this money plugs a large gap in the CWUHQ finances. Have you ever thought that perhaps the CWU Law Department plays a more clandestine role in Industrial relations then you thought ? It is obvious that pay rises from Royal Mail are self financed through revision activity and savings. We don't know that CWUHQ agree dismissal targets with Royal MAil. That is to say maybe there is an idea of how many members will be dismissed in Royal Mail per annum and this money used is also a contributing factor in pay rises. Of course after an appeal or once the grievance procedure has been exhausted the member will look for external legal intervention. With the representation stopped at Employment Tribunal the money goes some way in assisting in protecting Royal MAil with the money saved from the Employment Tribunal complaints and compensation. This money can then be pooled for a collective pay rises. The £20 million comes with strings and lets not kid ourselves about it. This string is one making up of an Orchestra. That why the Employment law department will always play the same old song about 50% instead of 50 cent.