Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Levy process

Wildcat Unofficial Strikes == The Sack

Recommended Posts

The postal workers on unofficial strikes - surely that is grounds for instant dismissal. I'm no fan of the official strikes, but at least they are within the bounds of law. But I can't see why the Royal Mail don't just make an example of the unofficial strikers - fire 10% of them every day starting yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The postal workers on unofficial strikes - surely that is grounds for instant dismissal. I'm no fan of the official strikes, but at least they are within the bounds of law. But I can't see why the Royal Mail don't just make an example of the unofficial strikers - fire 10% of them every day starting yesterday.

Because the grounds for doing so aren't that clear cut.

The management have changed a basic contractual term without proper notification periods (from what I understand) - i.e. the hours that posties work. No doubt if you went to work tomorrow and your boss lengthened your day permanently by 2 hours for no extra money you would want the option to be made redundant instead and a period in which to sort your life out around the new arrangements if you did accept it.

They can't really sack anyone, only do constructive dismissal, with redundancy etc

(Nevermind the obvious political nightmare)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the grounds for doing so aren't that clear cut.

The management have changed a basic contractual term without proper notification periods (from what I understand) - i.e. the hours that posties work. No doubt if you went to work tomorrow and your boss lengthened your day permanently by 2 hours for no extra money you would want the option to be made redundant instead and a period in which to sort your life out around the new arrangements if you did accept it.

They can't really sack anyone, only do constructive dismissal, with redundancy etc

(Nevermind the obvious political nightmare)

I don't believe any of that. If it were true, the union would be backing them up. As it is, the union are urging them to return to work. I don't believe their day has been lengthened. I think there's just been some sort of clarification of their existing contractual hours. I don't think it is equivalent to lengthening the working day. I think it is equivalent to enforcing the hours they were already contracted to work, but which by some unofficial taken as read rule, they were previously were getting away with not working fully.

Anyway, if they really did have a case that their contracts had really been changed, rather than just fully enforced, why don't they just take the thing to court? This is where I think unions are totally unacceptable. I think unions helping people get access to legal teams to fight cases of breach of employment and contract law are fine. But unions exploiting a monopoly and withdrawing a service over something that could be settled in court is not on. And anyway, as I say, this is even beyond that, because the even the union is against the wildcat strikes and is urging a return to work. Sack them I say. They've broken their contract by not turning up to work outside of an official strike action. I'd expect to be sacked for doing that, and I don't see why they shouldn't be either.

Edited by Levy process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe any of that. If it were true, the union would be backing them up. As it is, the union are urging them to return to work. I don't believe their day has been lengthened. I think there's just been some sort of clarification of their existing contractual hours. I don't think it is equivalent to lengthening the working day. I think it is equivalent to enforcing the hours they were already contracted to work, but which by some unofficial taken as read rule, they were previously were getting away with not working fully.

Standard working practice had been changed accross the board with no notice. Their day has been lengthened. This isn't the only thing that has been changed, notice. It's not "etting away" with anything if it's been standard practice for a hundred years.

Any change to a contract must be accepted by both sides. There are statutory periods after which assent is assumed to be given by a silent party. RM has gone ahead early without waiting for that notice period and the posties could therefore claim constructive dismissal etc.

I'm not a slobbering trade unionist, btw. I think RM should be scrapped completely and opened to the free market. I just also think that people whould make good on their contractual promises and in this case RM managers aren't doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you made an edit.

The union isn't in breach of contract, the managers are. Under such circumstances not turning up to work is a viable thing to do. The existing contract has been torn up by one party so the other just needs recompense for loss or a new contract offered they can agree to or refuse.

If I change your core working conditions overnight and you decide not to turn up to work once you find out, who is at fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, you made an edit.

The union isn't in breach of contract, the managers are. Under such circumstances not turning up to work is a viable thing to do. The existing contract has been torn up by one party so the other just needs recompense for loss or a new contract offered they can agree to or refuse.

If I change your core working conditions overnight and you decide not to turn up to work once you find out, who is at fault?

I'd get it tested in court. I'd say, here's my old contract, here's my new one, here's where I think the change is, and they haven't given the due notice. If there was any doubt, I'd continue to work to my old contract, if I felt sure that I really was working to the old contract.

Clearly our understanding of the case is different. From what I've read, the employer is not accepting that they have changed the contract with respect to number of hours to be worked. If that is a lie, then I'd say the workers have a right to work to the rule of their old contract. I think RM are being very foolish if they are actually changing the contract without due notice. To be honest, I can't imagine they'd be that stupid. Anyway, I return again to this point: if it really were the case, surely the union would be spitting chips, and backing them all the way in their unofficial strike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd get it tested in court. I'd say, here's my old contract, here's my new one, here's where I think the change is, and they haven't given the due notice. If there was any doubt, I'd continue to work to my old contract, if I felt sure that I really was working to the old contract.

Clearly our understanding of the case is different. From what I've read, the employer is not accepting that they have changed the contract with respect to number of hours to be worked. If that is a lie, then I'd say the workers have a right to work to the rule of their old contract. I think RM are being very foolish if they are actually changing the contract without due notice. To be honest, I can't imagine they'd be that stupid. Anyway, I return again to this point: if it really were the case, surely the union would be spitting chips, and backing them all the way in their unofficial strike?

You can't do that. Working to the new contract is deemed to be acceptance of it. Also, it's tribunal not court in most employee cases.

We must be within the due notice period, because an official strike has been allowed. That's the first thing to say I think. The offical notice period is long enough (and then some it's 90 days or something amazing like that) to allow for withdrawal on both sides, official strikes etc. Therefore the RM can't claim assent through silence. The strikers seem pretty vocal to me.

From the point of view of "unions vs management" the argument is clear. They have an agreed procedure they have to follow, based on law etc. By not following union or RM procedure, each postie is effectively saying "my contract has been broken" as an individual. And it has. It's not just the working hours, they changed pensions and all kinds of things, any one of which could be a material breach and all stacked together they definitely are.

No one has to work to a broken agreement, all that has to happen is that recompense for the breach is made (I think the phrase is made whole) so if you want you can claim constructive dismissal, redundancy and so on. In this instance the changes were made by the management side and have yet to be accepted by the other party - the posties. If the posties don't want a new contract then they have to be paid up for loss of the old one.

They lose their jobs, but they can't be sacked.

Ofc, RM CAN sack the posties but what is outlined above will be the likely result once it's gone through the tribunals etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.