Royal Mail v mfpa - alleged overpayment of allowances

[mochamoo]

I have nothing to offer help wise , but just wanted you to know I have my fingers crossed for you!

[kennyparkroad]

any updates?

[mfpa]

any updates?

 

Still heard nothing.

 

May ring the court if I have time tomorrow to see if they filed the bits they were supposed to file and serve by 10th.

[mfpa]

The court have not received anything yet. I dropped in and asked yesterday.

[Guest ArthurP]

I worked for Royal Mail and I left under a cloud.

 

As you are finding out now they are the most spiteful and vindictive employers I ever had the misfortune to work for.

 

I had a 'solid' ET claim against them but it was struck out due to the 3 month rule.

 

I had no option but to return to work despite my failed ET but Royal Mail decided to relocate me and change my duties to an area I could not get public transport to, as the shift started at 04:30am, and I effectively lost about 30% of my normal weekly wage due to the relocation and change of duties.

 

And all of this despite my never having been disciplined for anything-originally I was the victim!!

 

I decided to resign as I felt this was victimisation, the above can be seen as penalties apportioned to a discipline case, and I lost a second ET against them but the lies Royal Mail came out with at the trial were astonishing.

 

The CWU were useless, in fact, the senior rep was more interested in management appeasment and, effectively, supported Royal Mail in a statement!!

 

So I was driven out of a job, never having been disciplined for anything at any time in 9 years, for standing up for myself.

 

That is what they do not like. Awful people.

[mfpa]

Heard from the court today: Royal Mail's Solicitors have applied for an order that the time limit to file and serve a detailed reply to the points raised in my defence and a defence to my counterclaim be extended by 14 days, to 4pm on 24/4/7.

 

The reasons given:-

 

1.Due to delays in retreiving relevant documentation including the Defendant's contract of employment, the Claimant has been unable to its reply and defence to counterclaim.

 

2. As the Defendent left the Claimant's employment some time ago, his personal file is located in storage in London and it will take a further 10-14 days for the Claimant to retreive the file.

 

3. In the circumstances, the Claimant requires more time in which to finalise its reply and defence to counterclaim and requests that the court extends the time for compliance by 14 days, to 4pm on 24/4/7.

 

The court has scheduled a hearing for this Application For An Extension For Filing Documents for 11th May. The Application was dated 11/4/7 but the court notice was 27th April.

 

They are not required to produce my employment contract until 14 days before the claim is heard.

 

 

[barracad]

Firstly I am surprised that Spratt Endicott have any involvement, one would expect the whole thing to be handled by Post Office Legal Services. Anyway I don't think that makes much difference to anything.

 

I think the key thing here, which I can't see you have mentioned anywhere, is what were the "additional allowances" which were removed? This could potentially make a big difference to the claim, and is the first thing the judge will want to know.

[half ax I]

mpfa - as a former union rep and hence a member do you not have recourse to assistance from your union? I would have thought they could provide some sort of legal assistance.

 

S

[Guest ArthurP]

mpfa - as a former union rep and hence a member do you not have recourse to assistance from your union? I would have thought they could provide some sort of legal assistance.

 

S

 

A home insurance policy should cover for an employment dispute too.

[LAN01]

Firstly I am surprised that Spratt Endicott have any involvement, one would expect the whole thing to be handled by Post Office Legal Services. Anyway I don't think that makes much difference to anything.

 

I think the key thing here, which I can't see you have mentioned anywhere, is what were the "additional allowances" which were removed? This could potentially make a big difference to the claim, and is the first thing the judge will want to know.

 

Royal Mail and the post office are 2 different organisations Post Office Legal Services would not get involved.

 

But good luck mfpa

[mfpa]

Royal Mail and the post office are 2 different organisations Post Office Legal Services would not get involved.

 

Royal Mail PLC is what was called Consignia PLC for a while and before that was called "the post office". Royal Mail is part of the post office / consignia plc / royal mail plc, along with Parcelforce and Post Office Ltd (formerly Post Office Counters Ltd).

 

Not sure who/what Post Office Legal Services is. For legal stuff related to industrial accidents,illness, etc they use Bond Pearce.

 

But good luck mfpa

 

Thank you

[mfpa]

mpfa - as a former union rep and hence a member do you not have recourse to assistance from your union? I would have thought they could provide some sort of legal assistance.

 

No longer a member as I now work for a company where the union are not active. Tried for several months (long before this case was brought) to remain a member / to rejoin but HQ bounced some of my emails and ignored the rest, as well as ignoring membership enquiries on my behalf from my former branch secretary.

 

My former branch secretary was assisting until Spratt Endicott basically said to **** off and they were going to court despite this being an IR matter that should be resolved via the normal IR procedures. (I'm told this is because RM sell them these cases and that route would not allow them to recoup their money.)

 

Another union officer/friend is helping me. Union HQ declined to assist.

 

I think the key thing here, which I can't see you have mentioned anywhere, is what were the "additional allowances" which were removed? This could potentially make a big difference to the claim, and is the first thing the judge will want to know.

 

The claim is not about what the allowances were for, rather about the fact that they were suddenly removed contrary to national agreements. Leadership, driving and shift allowances are pensionable, "assigned" allowances and most of this money is protected for a limited period in the event that an individual is forced to move from a duty that attracts them to a duty that would attract lower allowances. (These assigned allowances in RM also continue when you are on holiday, or off sick for up to 2 months.)

 

The penalty of Serious Warning accompanied by disciplinary transfer to another job within the manager's area of authority awarded in the "conduct case" is not financial - they have to award a Major Offence for that.

For reference, one national agreement is HERE, most relevant section being 6 on page 24 and 25. The relevant Conduct Code is HERE and discipline penalties are described about halfway through the document at section 14.

[mfpa]

Royal Mail's Solicitors have applied for an order that the time limit to file and serve a detailed reply to the points raised in my defence and a defence to my counterclaim be extended by 14 days, to 4pm on 24/4/7.

 

The reasons given:-

 

1.Due to delays in retreiving relevant documentation including the Defendant's contract of employment, the Claimant has been unable to its reply and defence to counterclaim.

They are not required to produce my employment contract until 14 days before the claim is heard so, on the face of it, that does not seem relevant at this stage (unless they are planning to refer to it in their reply - but standard for the time I started with RM, I expect).

 

2. As the Defendent left the Claimant's employment some time ago, his personal file is located in storage in London and it will take a further 10-14 days for the Claimant to retreive the file.

 

A casual email enquiry to Royal Mail HR reveals that their Data Protection Act Team in Aldershot [not London] should usually be able to send out the information within 7 days. By the time Spratt Endicott applied for the extension they had already had 14 or 15 days.

3. In the circumstances, the Claimant requires more time in which to finalise its reply and defence to counterclaim and requests that the court extends the time for compliance by 14 days, to 4pm on 24/4/7.

Stalling. Looks like they suddenly noticed they should have done it.

 

The court has scheduled a hearing for this Application For An Extension For Filing Documents for 11th May. The Application was dated 11/4/7 but the court notice was 27th April.

 

Does that gap in dates suggest anything?

 

I am considering attending that hearing for a look at the court (if I can get out of work - I work within 100 yards). If I do, should I say anything and should I take anything with me?

[mfpa]

Probably unable to get to court Friday.

 

Should I submit to the court that I have no objection to Spratt Endicott's request for a further 14 days but question the need as Royal Mail HR say their Data Protection Act Team in Aldershot should usually be able to send out the information within 7 days?

 

If so, how? Is there a form or do I write a letter?

 

Do I attach printed copies of emails to/from Royal Mail HR (and do I copy these by fax/email to Spratt Endicott)?

[barracad]

Royal Mail and the post office are 2 different organisations Post Office Legal Services would not get involved.

 

Actually, Post Office Legal Services are the in-house solicitors for Royal Mail Group Ltd (formerly Royal Mail Group Plc, Consignia, The Post Office... etc). But doesn't matter too much anyway it's not that relevant to this claim.

 

The claim is not about what the allowances were for, rather about the fact that they were suddenly removed contrary to national agreements.

 

I'm not disputing that, but what the allowances are for could make a huge difference. If the judge asks you what exactly the allowances are for then he would expect an answer, you can't tell him that is not what the claim is about! If you don't want to tell us, fine, but surely best to cover all angles.

[mfpa]

Planning to send the following email to Spratt Endicott tonight. Any thoughts?

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

 

I am writing you today in a further effort to ask you to consider my claim. I am most disappointed that you failed to communicate a new negotiating position from your client after rejecting my opening offer.

 

I have been notified that you applied for an extension for filing and serving a detailed reply to the points raised in my defence and a defence to the counterclaim.

 

Royal Mail's HR contact centre confirm that a complete copy of a personnel file and all other personal data held about an individual by Royal Mail Group PLC should usually be sent out within 7 days of their Data Protection Team in Aldershot receiving the £10.00 fee with the Subject Access Request. This suggests that you could have obtained the relevant documentation within the original time frame and are simply procrastinating.

 

In order to more speedily resolve this matter, I am willing to accept the sum of £**** [the figure from my N1 plus some more 8% interest] as full and final settlement of this particular claim. I do not agree to waive my rights in respect of any other actions, nor do I agree to a clause of confidentiality. In the event that the figure I have suggested is unacceptable to your client, I would remind them of the increasing amount they continue to invest in costs as the matter proceeds; an investment without prospect of a return.

 

I hope to hear from you very soon so that a reasonable conclusion to this claim might be achieved.

 

I am sure that the courts would wholeheartedly approve of our settling this matter in a timely manner and without their further intervention. I look forward to hearing from you.

[kennyparkroad]

go for it!

[mfpa]

Went to court today for the hearing about their 14-day extension for filing/serving defence to my counterclaim and detailed response to my defence.

 

I did not object, so it was granted. Rather than the 14 extra days from 10th April they applied for, they have got 14 days from today - ie till 25th May. That means I'll be working on my court bundle due in by 31st May before I see what they submit.

 

They sent an agency solicitor and they were ordered to pay me £50 costs for attending today, by cheque within 14 days.

[mfpa]

about their 14-day extension for filing/serving defence to my counterclaim and detailed response to my defence.

Received today. Only had quick look but I didn't see anything unexpected.

 

they were ordered to pay me £50 costs for attending today, by cheque within 14 days.

 

Received cheque today, too. The cheque took two days in first class post but the bundle of other documents only took one day.

 

No reply to my email yet (see post 41 of this thread).

[jampot]

good luck

[mfpa]

A

but what the allowances are for could make a huge difference. If the judge asks you what exactly the allowances are for then he would expect an answer, you can't tell him that is not what the claim is about! If you don't want to tell us, fine, but surely best to cover all angles.

 

Good point.

 

The allowances are for responsibilities/activities/attendance times not applicable to the new duty. Generally in Royal Mail, somebody changing at the company's behest to a duty that would attract lower allowances keeps most of their old duty's allowances (for a longer time than matters here) under the terms of various national agreements, some of which I presumably need to include in my court bundle.

 

The dispute hinges on the fact that the penalty applied under the conduct code was not one of the ones that "may include loss of earnings and pension entitlement". I got a "Serious Warning". The possible financial penalties are reserved for what the Royal Mail Conduct Code describes as a "Major Offence".

[mfpa]

Court a week tomorrow (14th June).

[kennyparkroad]

good luck

[mfpa]

Royal Mail's claim struck out.

 

My counterclaim adjourned pending restitution.

 

We have to calculate/agree how much they owe me by the end of July and they are also supposed to adjust my (future) pension entitlement because most of the allowances are pensionable.

 

Surreal experience in court as the judge kept saying "Why are we here?"

 

Loved it when their barrister drew the judge's attention to a paragraph he had highlighted in his court bundle and the judge pointed out it did not address the issue at hand.

 

The look on my former line manager's face at the end was priceless!

[half ax I]

Nice one! Well Done. Hope they sort out pretty damn quick.