National Get The Vote Out Day - Dave Ward and Andy Furey #WeAreStillHere

[TrueBlueTerrier]

[Yumyum]

Absolute bunch of f@#$ing clowns,, never ever a f@#$ing apology for their continuing f$#@ ups..about time they sacked these f$#@ing so called lawyers,, I'm f#@$ing fuming

[Ali831]

Am I the only one that can't even be bothered to watch these videos anymore. It's the same old drivel and we are worse off then we were at the beginning as changes are already being made. Disillusioned springs to mind and almost £2k out of pocket.

[Constance]

I agree. I think there should be some accountability from the CWU Legal Department for this own goal. It may be a sensitive time to have that enquiry but we do need to reflect.

Do they obtain a KC's opinion before communicating with Royal Mail? Do they seek external advice from other solicitors? We don't know.

If they do not obtain Counsel's advice each and every time they make a move, then that is a big failure on their part.

I think from looking at past mistakes, they overestimate their abilities in dealing with highly technical and largely unadjudicated legislation.

We know the law is prejudicial to unions. We know the judiciary err on the side of employers. It is still possible to remain on the right side of the law and call legitimate strikes.

[redlen]

People are quick to have a go at the legal dept but they can only act on instructions from the top table, no matter what the legal professional advice given.

The 2017 strike ballot that had an injunction is a prime example. The CWU had a Queens Council representing them, trying to defend the impossible.

[Constance]

My point is that we don't know, when the Executive sought legal advice from the legal department, if the same legal department got a KC or very senior Counsel to advise on the legality of the Notice.

It would be highly imprudent if the legal department did not do so.

Had the legal department done so, I strongly suspect the KC/Senior Counsel would have pointed out the exact same discrepancies that Royal Mail did. I just can't see any senior barrister not coming to the same conclusion that Royal Mail did.

Now, if the Exec did get KC advice on this issue prior to issuing the notice and they chose to ignore that advice, then I would question whether the Executives decision was sound.

You would be a fool to discount a KC advice in my opinion. You would need a second or a third KCs opinion in order to have the confidence to discount it.

As you point out , Royal Mail raised the problems and CWU chose not to litigate.

This lends me to think that a KCs advice was never obtained, because they folded immediately.

If the CWU legal department did not advise the union to seek counsels advice, then this was a big error.

This possibility, that our legal department advised the Executive solely with an in house opinion, is what I have an issue with.

It's a given that the higher courts are choosing to apply these anti union laws with strict technical correctness in absolute terms.

That why it would be sheer foolishness to make a move such as this without the advice from senior counsel at the very outset in order to appreciate the legal risks that Royal Mail would take it to court.

I'm not sure if I've explained my point adequately and the distinction I am making.

[Constance]

Now if your suggesting that the Exec dictate to the legal department what they will be advised upon, then I would still expect our legal department still to strongly advise the Exec to seek Counsels opinion.

If the Exec just discount that advice or as you also might be suggesting don't even seek that advice. I strongly believe the Exec would need to be reprimanded by the membership for playing fast and loose with legislation that they are clearly not experts on ( not being legal professionals).

Lots of supposition here. But we do know the Exec folded at the first opportunity, which makes me think it was all done on the back of a fag packet without checking it over with Gandalf.

[Eduardo]

Well how to we find out if proper and correct legal advice was sought and whether or not it was ignored?
How do we get to the truth of the matter?
These are very important questions about the attitude of the CWU.
The leadership should be open about scrutiny.

[Constance]

I agree. I suppose we ask our Branches to raise it at Conference somehow or some correct channel through the Branch Secretary? Or maybe raise it at your next yearly Branch AGM, just so that it's in the minutes and it has to receive a visible response? I think it is a question that should be asked.