Posties being forced to changed depot.

[InsaneClownPostie]

Several posties in our delivery office, all on fixed-term contracts, have been told they have to move to other depots due to our office being allegedly overstaffed.

There are other posties here who have been with the company for a shorter period of time, but are on permanent contracts. These posties are not being moved.

According to this link:

https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts ... ees-rights

Employees on FTCs cannot be treated less favourably than those with permanent contracts, unless there is a 'good business reason for doing so'.

Is anyone here able to shed any light on any 'good business reason' RM could have for treating these posties less favourably?

[pieoftheday]

Several posties in our delivery office, all on fixed-term contracts, have been told they have to move to other depots due to our office being allegedly overstaffed.

There are other posties here who have been with the company for a shorter period of time, but are on permanent contracts. These posties are not being moved.

According to this link:

https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts ... ees-rights

Employees on FTCs cannot be treated less favourably than those with permanent contracts, unless there is a 'good business reason for doing so'.

Is anyone here able to shed any light on any 'good business reason' RM could have for treating these posties less favourably?

Your office may have been told they have to shed a few hundred hours? We have, agency gone and most OT

[InsaneClownPostie]

Your office may have been told they have to shed a few hundred hours?

Well yes, that is what's happened.

Maybe I didn't phrase my question clearly enough.

I'm wondering why it is that those on fixed-term contracts are being forced to move and not those on permanent contracts?

UK employment law states that there should be no discrimination between the two groups.

[pieoftheday]

Your office may have been told they have to shed a few hundred hours?

Well yes, that is what's happened.

Maybe I didn't phrase my question clearly enough.

I'm wondering why it is that those on fixed-term contracts are being forced to move and not those on permanent contracts?

UK employment law states that there should be no discrimination between the two groups.

Ah yes sorry, fxxk knows how RM are making decisions these days

[InsaneClownPostie]

Thanks for replying though, hopefully others reading this may be able to shed some light on the matter.

[TopperGas]

Are the FTC's actually being treated unfairly as I assume they'll still be working the same hours, doing the same jobs and getting the same rate of pay?

[yellowbelly]

Your office may have been told they have to shed a few hundred hours?

Well yes, that is what's happened.

Maybe I didn't phrase my question clearly enough.

I'm wondering why it is that those on fixed-term contracts are being forced to move and not those on permanent contracts?

UK employment law states that there should be no discrimination between the two groups.

...............unless the employer can show that there is a good business reason to do so.

Why is it happening? Because RM management can get away with it, that's why. Perhaps the permanent
staff have 'signed' for walks and would kick up a fuss if they were to be moved, which would be the case in
most offices I know.

How much effort will a rep put into representing the possible less favourable treatment considering that
these FTC's have possibly not joined the union being only on FTC's? It's not discrimination though it's 'less favourable
treatment' as the gov website states.

[InsaneClownPostie]

Thanks to everyone replying, it seems though answers are being posted to questions I'm not asking

Are the FTC's actually being treated unfairly as I assume they'll still be working the same hours, doing the same jobs and getting the same rate of pay?

I'm not saying they're being treated unfairly, I'm saying they're being treated less favourably. A subtle distinction to be sure, but a distinction nonetheless.

Perhaps the permanent staff have 'signed' for walks and would kick up a fuss if they were to be moved, which would be the case in most offices I know.

How much effort will a rep put into representing the possible less favourable treatment considering that
these FTC's have possibly not joined the union being only on FTC's?

For the record, the FTCs have been in the job longer than some of those with permanent contracts. Several of the FTCs have actually signed for walks and floats, whereas the newer staff members with permanent contracts have not.

Every member of both groups are union members.

Quoting myself to restate my question :

According to this link:

https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts ... ees-rights

Employees on FTCs cannot be treated less favourably than those with permanent contracts, unless there is a 'good business reason for doing so'.

Is anyone here able to shed any light on any 'good business reason' RM could have for treating these posties less favourably?

Without a 'good business reason', RM are surely falling foul of UK employment law.

[yellowbelly]

Thanks to everyone replying, it seems though answers are being posted to questions I'm not asking


Without a 'good business reason', RM are surely falling foul of UK employment law.

Ok, but without being in your office and knowing the exact circumstances of what's happening there's
not much colleagues on the forum can suggest. We don't know what the local RM 'good business reason'
might be. Get together with your union rep if people feel strongly enough about it to find out
and challenge if necessary.