Cycle Helmet agreement

[belle]

Can any one tell me is this still valid or can a manager know just conduct code you with out involving the cwu

[Pat Ostman]

Yes you can be conducted by management. It's a written warning, 500 lines and you must do your detention after work.

They say it's about health and safety. It's actually a way of getting rid of honest staff.

[andy2007]

Why?
It won't kill you to wear a helmet. And you never know: one day it might actually save your life.

I know that there are studies which suggest that they may not be as effective as they're supposed to be. But what's so terrible about wearing one anyway?
Just wear your helmet. It is PPE after all.

[Pat Ostman]

It's the fact that people are sacked for not wearing them by managers that gets me. Not because they care, that might be different, but because they do it for a nice fat bonus.

It won't kill you to wear a helmet.

Really? Ever heard of rotational injuries?

[andy2007]

Sorry, I must be a bit out of date. The last time I checked (last year), there were some reports saying they were effective, and others saying that they weren't.

But you're right, that people shouldn't be, being sacked for not wearing the helmets. What I meant was: Just wear the helmet, and then they won't have an excuse. Because as it's officially PPE, they are within their rights to discipline you for not wearing them. Despite the fact that they're of dubious (and from what you've told me IPS) possibly of no benefit at all. Which makes sacking people for refusing to wear them, rediculous.

[andy2007]

It's the fact that people are sacked for not wearing them by managers that gets me. Not because they care, that might be different, but because they do it for a nice fat bonus.

It won't kill you to wear a helmet.

Really? Ever heard of rotational injuries?

Have you heard of fractured skulls, concussion, compression, etc.?
However: since you said that there's now conclusive evidence that they aren't effective. And assuming that there isn't another recent report contradicting it (as was the situation last year). You really need to try to have them removed from the list of compulsary PPE.

I can't find any information about the risks of rotational injuries with Motorbike Helmets. So until I can find some information, I'll reserve judgement on Cycle helmets.

[brothermagrew]

Can any one tell me is this still valid or can a manager know just conduct code you with out involving the cwu

I would say that it is another National Agreement that Royal Mail have clearly abrogated. Having said that, as it was a joint Agreement between both parties the net outcome would most probably be the same, in other words, with or without CWU involvement, if an employee continually refuses to wear a cycle helmet (after repeated requests) then they can expect to be conducted coded for refusing to wear issued PPE and I would suspect for refusing to obey a simple managerial request.

It should be borne in mind, that Royal Mail Service Delivery and the CWU recognised the need to improve cycle safety and agreed that the introduction of cycle helmets and high visibility garments were key to meeting those aims by ensuring that those delivering and collecting mail on cycles were firstly more visible to other road users and secondly were better protected in the event of an accident.

According to the Agreement it was important that managers worked in close consultation with CWU Area and local reps to encourage and ensure that high cycle safety standards were achieved through the wearing of cycle helmets and hi-vis. It was also determined that a sensitive and measured approach would be taken at all times by managers when seeking to achieve the new safety standards consisting of counselling, persuasion, provision of clear information, instruction and training plus Union involvement. Conduct code action must be a managers last resort.

[pinstripe]

"Conduct code action must be a managers last resort."

Has anyone told the managers this? They seem to jump at any opportunity to CC staff, why give them any help.
Joe Bloggs works 40 hours a week, starts on time, refuses to use his car, takes his full meal relief, finishes on time or cuts off, in short a right pain for the managers. His manager is looking for brownie points and a nice bonus when he spots Joe not wearing the issued PPE, what does he do?
a. A quiet word explaining that it is company policy and for his safety.
b. Haul him into the office to issue a warning or dismissal.

[brothermagrew]

"Conduct code action must be a managers last resort."

Has anyone told the managers this? They seem to jump at any opportunity to CC staff, why give them any help.
Joe Bloggs works 40 hours a week, starts on time, refuses to use his car, takes his full meal relief, finishes on time or cuts off, in short a right pain for the managers. His manager is looking for brownie points and a nice bonus when he spots Joe not wearing the issued PPE, what does he do?
a. A quiet word explaining that it is company policy and for his safety.
b. Haul him into the office to issue a warning or dismissal.

Hypothetically speaking, I would suspect that the managers already know this, as after all it is contained within the 2003 RMSD/CWU National Agreement/Code of Practice for Improving Cycle Safety by the Introduction of Cycle Helmets and High Visibility Garments.

Now Joe Bloggs rightly so is a man of high principles, who steadfastly works his 40 hour contracted working week, who again refuses to be intimated or otherwise into using his private car for business delivery purposes, who diligently takes his full entitlement to meal relief, who tries to finish on time but where this is impractical or darn right impossible cuts off as is his democratic right not to work over and above his scheduled contracted hours. Who may be considered a right pain by his managerial team. But rather misguidedly IMHO either forgets to or refuses to wear his issed PPE which bluntly put affords him a necessary protection for his health and safety whilst out on delivery.

Question Joe has to consider is, was through his own acts or omissions, whether his manager was justified in having a quite word with him in explaining that it is company policy and for his safety and therefore must be worn. Or as has already been adequately said, finds he is hauled into the manager's office to receive a warning or notice of dismissal. With regards to the secondary part (dismissal presumably after a failed appeal) an Industrial Employment Tribunal would surely look at what agreements and procedures were in place, and on whether those agreements and procedures were followed. And accordingly to apply the standard of the reasonable employer, which is an objective standard indicative of the ways in which a reasonable employer in those circumstances in that line of business would have behaved.

Of course there may well be circumstances in which reasonable employers might react differently. An employer might reasonably take the view , if the circumstances so justified, that his attitude must be a firm and definite one and must involve dismissal in order to deter other employees from like conduct. Another employer might quite reasonably on compassionate grounds treat the case as a special case.

It generally goes without saying that a Tribunal is bound to decide each case before them on the basis of the evidence and not on the basis of speculation.