Agreement between Cwu and royal mail

[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.

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?

This forum is full of extremely well informed and knowledgeable people from a variety of backgrounds. I never underestimate anyone on here. As a newbie to RM you would benefit from acknowledging that on RM and the CWU, they are the wise owls to learn from.

[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?

This forum is full of extremely well informed and knowledgeable people from a variety of backgrounds. I never underestimate anyone on here. As a newbie to RM you would benefit from acknowledging that on RM and the CWU, they are the wise owls to learn from.

Isn’t my signing up to this forum as clear an acknowledgement as I can give that there are wise owls to learn from out there? The whole reason I signed up was to benefit from the collective experience of others. Sadly, however, this forum seems to be much more about sniping and slapping down than sharing and imparting knowledge and experience, which is a real shame.

[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.

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?

This forum is full of extremely well informed and knowledgeable people from a variety of backgrounds. I never underestimate anyone on here. As a newbie to RM you would benefit from acknowledging that on RM and the CWU, they are the wise owls to learn from.

Isn’t my signing up to this forum as clear an acknowledgement as I can give that there are wise owls to learn from out there? The whole reason I signed up was to benefit from the collective experience of others. Sadly, however, this forum seems to be much more about sniping and slapping down than sharing and imparting knowledge and experience, which is a real shame.

Superciliousness gets people’s back up.

[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?

This forum is full of extremely well informed and knowledgeable people from a variety of backgrounds. I never underestimate anyone on here. As a newbie to RM you would benefit from acknowledging that on RM and the CWU, they are the wise owls to learn from.

Isn’t my signing up to this forum as clear an acknowledgement as I can give that there are wise owls to learn from out there? The whole reason I signed up was to benefit from the collective experience of others. Sadly, however, this forum seems to be much more about sniping and slapping down than sharing and imparting knowledge and experience, which is a real shame.

Superciliousness gets people’s back up.

I hold several professional and vocational qualifications and have a lifetime of experience in the real world. Sorry if that bothers you.

[clashcityrocker]

Why did you feel the need to quote 25 lines of posts for a one line reply?
It is unnecessary.

[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.

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?

This forum is full of extremely well informed and knowledgeable people from a variety of backgrounds. I never underestimate anyone on here. As a newbie to RM you would benefit from acknowledging that on RM and the CWU, they are the wise owls to learn from.

Isn’t my signing up to this forum as clear an acknowledgement as I can give that there are wise owls to learn from out there? The whole reason I signed up was to benefit from the collective experience of others. Sadly, however, this forum seems to be much more about sniping and slapping down than sharing and imparting knowledge and experience, which is a real shame.

Superciliousness gets people’s back up.

I hold several professional and vocational qualifications and have a lifetime of experience in the real world. Sorry if that bothers you.

And there it is.

[Rve83ndxd]

Why did you feel the need to quote 25 lines of posts for a one line reply?
It is unnecessary.

It's so I can quickly scroll through without reading because it's crap.

[BELIAL]

Gobshite done and dusted

[scotchy1962]

For the life of me i can't remember the name of the "google" lawyer we used to have running around this forum, spouting all sorts of laws and cases picked up with a simple google search.
While i have no reason to dispute what smooth is saying about her background, perhaps coming onto this forum and trying to educate us in the ways of RM and employment law isn't the way to go. Serve your time, learn what really goes on behind the scenes and don't quote employment law like it's some sort of gospel, it isn't, and as i have said companies treat them more as a guidance than actual law.

[Smoothbackground]

For the life of me i can't remember the name of the "google" lawyer we used to have running around this forum, spouting all sorts of laws and cases picked up with a simple google search.
While i have no reason to dispute what smooth is saying about her background, perhaps coming onto this forum and trying to educate us in the ways of RM and employment law isn't the way to go. Serve your time, learn what really goes on behind the scenes and don't quote employment law like it's some sort of gospel, it isn't, and as i have said companies treat them more as a guidance than actual law.

When people on here spout rubbish about a poor CWU rep running around like a headless chicken and working 10 times harder than the rest of us — when in reality they do at least 20% less real work than us — I will continue to put the record right and put the counterfactual situation. Time and time again.

So yet again — the ET and EAT judgments overwhelmingly prove that ultimately RM follows the law prescriptively and almost to the letter in a vast majority of cases, rather than “treating it as guidance” as others on here spout. Fact.

Stop trying to discredit me or dispute my bona fides. Do you try to discredit me because you can’t dispute the irrefutable facts and findings in the thousands of publicly available judicial judgments?!

[nim84]

Come on guys, Smooth has put the record straight time and time again, she has got the big guns out (Cillex). In Smooths defence, just because she is fairly new, doesn't mean she can't know everything nationally about union time and release time or the facts of all the conduct codes and sackings. I've looked at the link and cant seem to find many cases supported by the CWU,  it says in person, not sure, and can't find any vexatious claims but saw on the third claim down Royal Mail having to pay costs, says they had no prospect of success.


https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... slash-2023

Look she is not a keyboard warrior or anything, she is a story of great success working for dream company Royal Mail, she has moved forward in life and loves her job so so much, it's upsetting to hear bad stories about your employer and she is not having it, cut her some slack.

[Perseus]

Speaking of the agreement - does anyone have a link to the dates of the seasonal hours and what hours are worked when. i.e. 35, 37, 39 hours.

[ted_e_bear]

Speaking of the agreement - does anyone have a link to the dates of the seasonal hours and what hours are worked when. i.e. 35, 37, 39 hours.

I don't have a link but on our do noticeboard it says high season 39 hrs starts wc 18th November for 5 weeks so back to 37 wc 23rd December

[scotchy1962]

For the life of me i can't remember the name of the "google" lawyer we used to have running around this forum, spouting all sorts of laws and cases picked up with a simple google search.
While i have no reason to dispute what smooth is saying about her background, perhaps coming onto this forum and trying to educate us in the ways of RM and employment law isn't the way to go. Serve your time, learn what really goes on behind the scenes and don't quote employment law like it's some sort of gospel, it isn't, and as i have said companies treat them more as a guidance than actual law.

When people on here spout rubbish about a poor CWU rep running around like a headless chicken and working 10 times harder than the rest of us — when in reality they do at least 20% less real work than us — I will continue to put the record right and put the counterfactual situation. Time and time again.

So yet again — the ET and EAT judgments overwhelmingly prove that ultimately RM follows the law prescriptively and almost to the letter in a vast majority of cases, rather than “treating it as guidance” as others on here spout. Fact.

Stop trying to discredit me or dispute my bona fides. Do you try to discredit me because you can’t dispute the irrefutable facts and findings in the thousands of publicly available judicial judgments?!

Nothing written by yourself makes me think you are nothing other than a barrack room lawyer, you don't like it, no problem but my opinion is there and i stand by it.
Keeping on coming back with your "facts" doesn't really impress and your vitriol for the union continues unabated, i am not trying to discredit you as everything you post is at the end of a google search bar.
Relax and continue to comment all you want, just don't try to state what you say is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
I am sure you will reply, but i feel that's enough on the subject.

[postslippete]

In smooth's defence our main rep gets plenty of paid release and I can't remember the last time they actually did a full walk.

We have had people in the past who became union reps and left soon after because they were never recognised as a rep in the office, were never involved in any of the weekly meetings with the DOM and rarely got any paid release. Imho the union really need to support these other reps better if they want a stronger union