Agreement between Cwu and royal mail

[postslippete]

Anyone thinking that RM adheres strictly to employment law should be aware that the company unfairly suspended and sacked reps and members during the industrial dispute. RM avoided around 400 cases at the employment tribunal in which they would have been bang to rights for mass victimisation and would have incurred huge costs. As it was many of them knew that the writing was on the wall and took the financial settlement.

The main reason why the Union folded and brought out their self-preservation document imho was when RM issued formal legal notice that it was withdrawing from all existing legal agreements with the CWU and that included stopping the Union from using payroll for our weekly subs and funding reps release time.

[Smoothbackground]

Wasting your time Barnacle, Smooth believes that because of her experience in past jobs that employers adhere to the employment law to the letter, blue collar work doesn't really give you insight into how it is at the bottom. Employers treat the law more as a guidance and, unless you are prepared to go down the legal route, won't change the way they treat us. That costs money and the union only tackle it if they know they can't lose.
It really does take a government to tackle big business and get them to toe the line, but like everything to do with politics the corruption is rife there too and the company will get away with it.
Having been a shop steward in years gone by i can confirm it's a thankless task if you do it right, i can also accept some take the job and see a chance to dodge some work and suck up to the boss.
Maybe that is what Smooth has in their office, doesn't mean they're all like that.

That’s not true, Scotchy. The CWU pursues hundreds of worthless causes each year. It pursues many claims each year on behalf of members that are found by the ET (and EAT) to be without merit, some even being certified as vexatious or in bad faith. Indeed, it would seem they lose far more ET claims (and EAT appeals) than they win.

As for my office, no, there is no sucking up at all by the union reps. Indeed, our DOM and lead union rep almost came to physical blows earlier this year — something we all witnessed — and the two now completely blank one another, with any liaison being done by the deputy(?) rep.

[TopperGas]

Wasting your time Barnacle, Smooth believes that because of her experience in past jobs that employers adhere to the employment law to the letter, blue collar work doesn't really give you insight into how it is at the bottom. Employers treat the law more as a guidance and, unless you are prepared to go down the legal route, won't change the way they treat us. That costs money and the union only tackle it if they know they can't lose.
It really does take a government to tackle big business and get them to toe the line, but like everything to do with politics the corruption is rife there too and the company will get away with it.
Having been a shop steward in years gone by i can confirm it's a thankless task if you do it right, i can also accept some take the job and see a chance to dodge some work and suck up to the boss.
Maybe that is what Smooth has in their office, doesn't mean they're all like that.

That’s not true, Scotchy. The CWU pursues hundreds of worthless causes each year. It pursues many claims each year on behalf of members that are found by the ET (and EAT) to be without merit, some even being certified as vexatious or in bad faith. Indeed, it would seem they lose far more ET claims (and EAT appeals) than they win.

As for my office, no, there is no sucking up at all by the union reps. Indeed, our DOM and lead union rep almost came to physical blows earlier this year — something we all witnessed — and the two now completely blank one another, with any liaison being done by the deputy(?) rep.

Can you post a link to those cases, which I assume will be reported by the courts if they have got as far as a judgement? As far as I was aware the CWU will only run a case if a barrister feels there's a greater than 50% chance of winning and that type of case hardly sounds likely to be vexatious or in bad faith.

[yellowbelly]

Wasting your time Barnacle, Smooth believes that because of her experience in past jobs that employers adhere to the employment law to the letter, blue collar work doesn't really give you insight into how it is at the bottom. Employers treat the law more as a guidance and, unless you are prepared to go down the legal route, won't change the way they treat us. That costs money and the union only tackle it if they know they can't lose.
It really does take a government to tackle big business and get them to toe the line, but like everything to do with politics the corruption is rife there too and the company will get away with it.
Having been a shop steward in years gone by i can confirm it's a thankless task if you do it right, i can also accept some take the job and see a chance to dodge some work and suck up to the boss.
Maybe that is what Smooth has in their office, doesn't mean they're all like that.

That’s not true, Scotchy. The CWU pursues hundreds of worthless causes each year. It pursues many claims each year on behalf of members that are found by the ET (and EAT) to be without merit, some even being certified as vexatious or in bad faith. Indeed, it would seem they lose far more ET claims (and EAT appeals) than they win.

As for my office, no, there is no sucking up at all by the union reps. Indeed, our DOM and lead union rep almost came to physical blows earlier this year — something we all witnessed — and the two now completely blank one another, with any liaison being done by the deputy(?) rep.

Can you post a link to those cases, which I assume will be reported by the courts if they have got as far as a judgement? As far as I was aware the CWU will only run a case if a barrister feels there's a greater than 50% chance of winning and that type of case hardly sounds likely to be vexatious or in bad faith.

Also don't ET claims have to be run past ACAS first (unless there's an exemption which I doubt many RM/individual employee claims come under) for them to offer early conciliation? Wouldn't that weed out the 'many' cases without merit and vexatious/bad faith claims?

[BELIAL]

Wasting your time Barnacle, Smooth believes that because of her experience in past jobs that employers adhere to the employment law to the letter, blue collar work doesn't really give you insight into how it is at the bottom. Employers treat the law more as a guidance and, unless you are prepared to go down the legal route, won't change the way they treat us. That costs money and the union only tackle it if they know they can't lose.
It really does take a government to tackle big business and get them to toe the line, but like everything to do with politics the corruption is rife there too and the company will get away with it.
Having been a shop steward in years gone by i can confirm it's a thankless task if you do it right, i can also accept some take the job and see a chance to dodge some work and suck up to the boss.
Maybe that is what Smooth has in their office, doesn't mean they're all like that.

That’s not true, Scotchy. The CWU pursues hundreds of worthless causes each year. It pursues many claims each year on behalf of members that are found by the ET (and EAT) to be without merit, some even being certified as vexatious or in bad faith. Indeed, it would seem they lose far more ET claims (and EAT appeals) than they win.

As for my office, no, there is no sucking up at all by the union reps. Indeed, our DOM and lead union rep almost came to physical blows earlier this year — something we all witnessed — and the two now completely blank one another, with any liaison being done by the deputy(?) rep.

Can you post a link to those cases, which I assume will be reported by the courts if they have got as far as a judgement? As far as I was aware the CWU will only run a case if a barrister feels there's a greater than 50% chance of winning and that type of case hardly sounds likely to be vexatious or in bad faith.

Oh please provide a link to the sources of this information about hundreds of worthless ET cases persued by cwu each year.

[Acca Dacca]

.

[Smoothbackground]

Wasting your time Barnacle, Smooth believes that because of her experience in past jobs that employers adhere to the employment law to the letter, blue collar work doesn't really give you insight into how it is at the bottom. Employers treat the law more as a guidance and, unless you are prepared to go down the legal route, won't change the way they treat us. That costs money and the union only tackle it if they know they can't lose.
It really does take a government to tackle big business and get them to toe the line, but like everything to do with politics the corruption is rife there too and the company will get away with it.
Having been a shop steward in years gone by i can confirm it's a thankless task if you do it right, i can also accept some take the job and see a chance to dodge some work and suck up to the boss.
Maybe that is what Smooth has in their office, doesn't mean they're all like that.

That’s not true, Scotchy. The CWU pursues hundreds of worthless causes each year. It pursues many claims each year on behalf of members that are found by the ET (and EAT) to be without merit, some even being certified as vexatious or in bad faith. Indeed, it would seem they lose far more ET claims (and EAT appeals) than they win.

As for my office, no, there is no sucking up at all by the union reps. Indeed, our DOM and lead union rep almost came to physical blows earlier this year — something we all witnessed — and the two now completely blank one another, with any liaison being done by the deputy(?) rep.

Can you post a link to those cases, which I assume will be reported by the courts if they have got as far as a judgement? As far as I was aware the CWU will only run a case if a barrister feels there's a greater than 50% chance of winning and that type of case hardly sounds likely to be vexatious or in bad faith.

Have a look for yourself — https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... royal+mail

And EAT and higher court decisions here — https://www.bailii.org/form/search_cases.html

[Smoothbackground]

Wasting your time Barnacle, Smooth believes that because of her experience in past jobs that employers adhere to the employment law to the letter, blue collar work doesn't really give you insight into how it is at the bottom. Employers treat the law more as a guidance and, unless you are prepared to go down the legal route, won't change the way they treat us. That costs money and the union only tackle it if they know they can't lose.
It really does take a government to tackle big business and get them to toe the line, but like everything to do with politics the corruption is rife there too and the company will get away with it.
Having been a shop steward in years gone by i can confirm it's a thankless task if you do it right, i can also accept some take the job and see a chance to dodge some work and suck up to the boss.
Maybe that is what Smooth has in their office, doesn't mean they're all like that.

That’s not true, Scotchy. The CWU pursues hundreds of worthless causes each year. It pursues many claims each year on behalf of members that are found by the ET (and EAT) to be without merit, some even being certified as vexatious or in bad faith. Indeed, it would seem they lose far more ET claims (and EAT appeals) than they win.

As for my office, no, there is no sucking up at all by the union reps. Indeed, our DOM and lead union rep almost came to physical blows earlier this year — something we all witnessed — and the two now completely blank one another, with any liaison being done by the deputy(?) rep.

Can you post a link to those cases, which I assume will be reported by the courts if they have got as far as a judgement? As far as I was aware the CWU will only run a case if a barrister feels there's a greater than 50% chance of winning and that type of case hardly sounds likely to be vexatious or in bad faith.

Also don't ET claims have to be run past ACAS first (unless there's an exemption which I doubt many RM/individual employee claims come under) for them to offer early conciliation? Wouldn't that weed out the 'many' cases without merit and vexatious/bad faith claims?

ACAS is there to provide early conciliation (akin to mediation), which is a prerequisite to bringing an ET claim, ie, you need to prove that you have tried conciliation before you can issue your ET claim . But no, they do not determine the merits or prospects of success of any prospective claims, nor weed out any bad cases, since that would be usurping the ET’s function.

[Basildon Bond]

Have a look for yourself — https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... royal+mail

And EAT and higher court decisions here — https://www.bailii.org/form/search_cases.html

Having ploughing through about twenty claims and reading all of them to get a general understanding of the documents... how do I link than the CWU had anything to do with them? I'm genuinely interested to drill down the hundreds listed. I think I'm missing some option.

I could only find one that mentions the union in attendance and that is down to blind luck...

Claimant
Mr M Wisby and Royal Mail Group Limited
Hearing held at Reading on 18 December 2019
Representation Claimant: Mr D Percival, trade union official
Respondent: Mr K Mc Ardle, legal executive
Employment Judge Vowles (sitting alone)

So in that hearing (Case Number: 3332637/2018), it looks like Mr M Wisby was represented by Mr D Percival who was stated to be a trade union official.

Any help in filtering welcome. There are currently too many to individually read and check for union involvement.

[scotchy1962]

Smooth has decided that working in a employment law firm is enough to make them the legal expert on employment law on here, we used to have another resident employment law expert before, i can't remember the name, and it proved to be they weren't a expert at all. I fancy we could have the same here.
The nuances of employment law are far to complex for us mere mortals to comprehend, that's why i say leave it to the experts, and like i said RM tend to treat them as a guidance rather that to be adhered to.
I have seen many people turned down by the union for a legal case because they think it's a 50/50 case. They need a 60/40 minimum if not more i suspect.

[CharlesSpooner]

And I don’t for one second underestimate the time needed for research and reading-in in preparation for a grievance or disciplinary, or to read and understand applicable policy or governance framework, to find inconsistencies in a series of witness statements in a disciplinary case so you can prepare your questions and submissions, etc, etc. I am just reiterating that the rep is given paid release time to do all of this work. Like anything intellectual in life, yes, I will accept that you might be drawn to read into it further outwith work hours. You were clearly committed and conscientious rep :-)

No they aren't. Reps don't get anything like enough 'paid release time' to deal with issues. Ours gets badgered while he's trying to prep his duty, phoned on his mobile when he's on leave or his day off and phoned while he's out on delivery. Most of his work isn't preparing paperwork but being moaned at, shouted at and trying to resolve problems for people - several of whom are absolutely taking the piss with unrealistic demands but he deals with it with good grace.

And having covered his duty regularly over the last couple of years it's not even a good one - one of the worst in the office. God knows why he signed for it.

The actual official 'paid released time' attending meetings with managers he does get is pretty much done as overtime around his duty or on his days off. The vast majority of his Union work is done for zero pay and bites heavily into what should be his own time.

[Smoothbackground]

Have a look for yourself — https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... royal+mail

And EAT and higher court decisions here — https://www.bailii.org/form/search_cases.html

Having ploughing through about twenty claims and reading all of them to get a general understanding of the documents... how do I link than the CWU had anything to do with them? I'm genuinely interested to drill down the hundreds listed. I think I'm missing some option.

I could only find one that mentions the union in attendance and that is down to blind luck...

Claimant
Mr M Wisby and Royal Mail Group Limited
Hearing held at Reading on 18 December 2019
Representation Claimant: Mr D Percival, trade union official
Respondent: Mr K Mc Ardle, legal executive
Employment Judge Vowles (sitting alone)

So in that hearing (Case Number: 3332637/2018), it looks like Mr M Wisby was represented by Mr D Percival who was stated to be a trade union official.

Any help in filtering welcome. There are currently too many to individually read and check for union involvement.

Maybe try using different search terms?

[Smoothbackground]

Smooth has decided that working in a employment law firm is enough to make them the legal expert on employment law on here, we used to have another resident employment law expert before, i can't remember the name, and it proved to be they weren't a expert at all. I fancy we could have the same here.
The nuances of employment law are far to complex for us mere mortals to comprehend, that's why i say leave it to the experts, and like i said RM tend to treat them as a guidance rather that to be adhered to.
I have seen many people turned down by the union for a legal case because they think it's a 50/50 case. They need a 60/40 minimum if not more i suspect.

No, I haven’t decided on the basis of working in an employment firm that it makes me a legal expert on employment law. My practice areas were professional regulation (which has some overlap with employment work) and family law. That said, my Cilex qualification, not to mention 18 years of experience in the law, both as a practitioner and as a manager — most of which was spent, admittedly, in practice areas other than employment law — does enable me to opine more authoritatively than others on here.

As for prospects of success of a prospective claim, most legal expenses insurers will cover legal fees and opponents’ costs where a lawyer assesses prospects at 51% or greater.

[Barnacle]

Smooth has decided that working in a employment law firm is enough to make them the legal expert on employment law on here, we used to have another resident employment law expert before, i can't remember the name, and it proved to be they weren't a expert at all. I fancy we could have the same here.
The nuances of employment law are far to complex for us mere mortals to comprehend, that's why i say leave it to the experts, and like i said RM tend to treat them as a guidance rather that to be adhered to.
I have seen many people turned down by the union for a legal case because they think it's a 50/50 case. They need a 60/40 minimum if not more i suspect.

No, I haven’t decided on the basis of working in an employment firm that it makes me a legal expert on employment law. My practice areas were professional regulation (which has some overlap with employment work) and family law. That said, my Cilex qualification, not to mention 18 years of experience in the law, both as a practitioner and as a manager — most of which was spent, admittedly, in practice areas other than employment law — does enable me to opine more authoritatively than others on here.

As for prospects of success of a prospective claim, most legal expenses insurers will cover legal fees and opponents’ costs where a lawyer assesses prospects at 51% or greater.

To clarify, you are not an expert and you do not know more than numerous contributors to this site, who have years of experience with both RM and the CWU, and who have therefore borne witness to the way both operate.

[Smoothbackground]

Smooth has decided that working in a employment law firm is enough to make them the legal expert on employment law on here, we used to have another resident employment law expert before, i can't remember the name, and it proved to be they weren't a expert at all. I fancy we could have the same here.
The nuances of employment law are far to complex for us mere mortals to comprehend, that's why i say leave it to the experts, and like i said RM tend to treat them as a guidance rather that to be adhered to.
I have seen many people turned down by the union for a legal case because they think it's a 50/50 case. They need a 60/40 minimum if not more i suspect.

No, I haven’t decided on the basis of working in an employment firm that it makes me a legal expert on employment law. My practice areas were professional regulation (which has some overlap with employment work) and family law. That said, my Cilex qualification, not to mention 18 years of experience in the law, both as a practitioner and as a manager — most of which was spent, admittedly, in practice areas other than employment law — does enable me to opine more authoritatively than others on here.

As for prospects of success of a prospective claim, most legal expenses insurers will cover legal fees and opponents’ costs where a lawyer assesses prospects at 51% or greater.

To clarify, you are not an expert and you do not know more than numerous contributors to this site, who have years of experience with both RM and the CWU, and who have therefore borne witness to the way both operate.

To clarify, I am a well-informed lady on the Clapham Omnibus — which is surely the most any of us can be on an anonymous online forum, no?