• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Central Line RMT strike 6 May 21

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
The role of an MP is to act in the best interests of their constituents, doesn't mean they shouldn't be scrutinised.

The RMT have said "The RMT will use every weapon available to secure the reinstatement of GC."

"Every Weapon"

Does that sound responsible to you?


They picked today as the proposed date for the strike as "We are mindful that the Mayoral election is in May, which coincides with an predicted upturn in traffic!"

So a group purporting to act in the best interests of their members deliberately chose a date to disrupt elections and you don't think that should have any scrutiny?!
Who exactly has the right, as long as the RMT complies with the relevant legislation, to "scrutinise" them? Sounds like Big Brother to me...

To be very clear, l am not a great fan of RMT but certainly am of human rights. You need to understand that just because you (or the Daily Heil) regard something as wrong that doesn't mean that it is wrong.

Bet that you think Mussolini, because he made the trains run on time, was wonderful....
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Who exactly has the right, as long as the RMT complies with the relevant legislation, to "scrutinise" them? Sounds like Big Brother to me.... Just because you regard something as wrong doesn't mean that it is wrong. Bet that you think Mussolini, because he made the trains run on time, was wonderful....
That's perilously close to Godwin.

Any body that can cripple a transport network on a whim, causing enormous problems for millions of people, needs to be properly monitored and audited.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
165
The RMT are not complying with the relevant legislation though are they. They are determining culpability based on a vote of their members, rather than the courts.

Scrutiny is one of the things that should occur in a free society especially towards a group that has the ability to disrupt an essential service for millions of Londoners and willingly admits to wanting to disrupt an election for tactical reasons.

ETA: And what journeyman said above
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
The RMT are not complying with the relevant legislation though are they. They are determining culpability based on a vote of their members, rather than the courts.

Scrutiny is one of the things that should occur in a free society especially towards a group that has the ability to disrupt an essential service for millions of Londoners and willingly admits to wanting to disrupt an election for tactical reasons.

ETA: And what journeyman said above
The criteria for withdrawal of labour are clearly set in legislation. RMT have fully complied.

Tell me where your claim that unfair dismissal cases have to be decided in an ET is set in legislation. You won't be able to because it isn't!
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
Interesting. I've actually drafted legislation (for both UK and the EU) and can't see what you claim so l suggest that you tell me what you mean.

Any assertion that a TU cannot ballot its members for, and subsequently take, action when it believes that one or more of them has been unfairly dismissed is undeniably and categorically complete crap though.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
165
The Employment Rights Act does not give Unions jurisdiction to determine matters of fact relating to whether an employee has been fairly dismissed. Only has ET has jurisdiction.

The union will only have immunity against damages in the event of a valid "Trade Dispute". I suspect that LUL may seek to challenge the validity of the legitimacy of such a dispute by way of an injunction if the underlying issue is devoid of merit.

The correct procedure to establish as fact unfair dismissal is to go to an employment tribunal. I know how much the RMT love following correct procedure.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
The Employment Rights Act does not give Unions jurisdiction to determine matters of fact relating to whether an employee has been fairly dismissed. Only has ET has jurisdiction.

The union will only have immunity against damages in the event of a valid "Trade Dispute". I suspect that LUL may seek to challenge the validity of the legitimacy of such a dispute by way of an injunction if the underlying issue is devoid of merit.

The correct procedure to establish as fact unfair dismissal is to go to an employment tribunal. I know how much the RMT love following correct procedure.
Frankly arguing with you is pointless as you have your viewpoint and are deaf to those of others. Let's just say that your argument is contrary to years of precedent. I suggest that you read this.

 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
165
Well I think we have a lot of common ground actually.

Page 5 of your document confirms there needs to be a "trade dispute" to have immunity

Page 8 of your document confirms that "Where immunity does not apply, those party to contracts which are broken, or the performance of which is interfered with, by the organisation (or a threat to organise) industrial action may seek an injunction from the courts"

That is an echo of "The union will only have immunity against damages in the event of a valid "Trade Dispute". I suspect that LUL may seek to challenge the validity of the legitimacy of such a dispute by way of an injunction if the underlying issue is devoid of merit."

Thanks.


The jurisdiction conferred by the employment rights act were linked to above. You have not provided any evidence or authority to contradict that, merely assertion. If you are able to provide a link I will happily read it, much like I read your informative link in the post above.

You appear to have been deaf to the scrutiny discussion above, that's fine. You're under no obligation to respond.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
Well I think we have a lot of common ground actually.

Page 5 of your document confirms there needs to be a "trade dispute" to have immunity

Page 8 of your document confirms that "Where immunity does not apply, those party to contracts which are broken, or the performance of which is interfered with, by the organisation (or a threat to organise) industrial action may seek an injunction from the courts"

That is an echo of "The union will only have immunity against damages in the event of a valid "Trade Dispute". I suspect that LUL may seek to challenge the validity of the legitimacy of such a dispute by way of an injunction if the underlying issue is devoid of merit."

Thanks.


The jurisdiction conferred by the employment rights act were linked to above. You have not provided any evidence or authority to contradict that, merely assertion. If you are able to provide a link I will happily read it, much like I read your informative link in the post above.

You appear to have been deaf to the scrutiny discussion above, that's fine. You're under no obligation to respond.
You are boring, banging on and on about the same thing, and wrong.

Look at p3, approx two thirds of the way down, second bullet.

 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
165
Charming :p

That's correct. As is my response - "I suspect that LUL may seek to challenge the validity of the legitimacy of such a dispute by way of an injunction if the underlying issue is devoid of merit."

Actually let me rephrase slightly - and I do think this is an interesting question:
Where a dispute concerns the purported unfair dismissal of an employee, to what extent does the unfair dismissal need to be proved to justify the strike action.
 
Last edited:

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
Charming :p

That's correct. As is my response - "I suspect that LUL may seek to challenge the validity of the legitimacy of such a dispute by way of an injunction if the underlying issue is devoid of merit."

Actually let me rephrase slightly - and I do think this is an interesting question:
Where a dispute concerns the purported unfair dismissal of an employee, to what extent does the unfair dismissal need to be proved to justify the strike action.
You can pose that question. As someone who has been involved in litigation to Supreme Court level l would say that a judge most likely would look at Parliament's intent when passing the relevant legislation. Had it wanted that threshold to be met it could have legislated accordingly - it didn't.....

The Court likely would look at what Ministers had to say in Parliament too, particularly in response to questions from MPs.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
165
Well they wouldn't just look at that. Certainly most of the judgements from both the criminal and civil courts of appeal are based solely on established case law.

If the underlying unfair dismissal could be found to be without merit then the legal principle of 'Clean Hands' would apply and an injunction would likely be successful. The claimant simple wouldn't need to rely on legislation.


In terms of relevant Employment Tribunal judgements, this one concerning the Central Line and a failed Drugs test. I refer to the case of Mr Paul Bailey, "Strike action announced in Paul Bailey unfair sacking dispute" thundered the RMT.

That did go to the ET and they found "The judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed".

Mr Paul Bailey was found to have "had knowingly consumed cannabis relatively shortly before attending for work, when on his own admission he was well aware of the Respondent’s drugs and alcohol policy, and of the likely consequences of breaching that policy".
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
This is just going around in circles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top