Member Info for madasaballoon

Scamp correct and on your last point that is not a legal challenge to a ballot but internal RM disciplinary matter

Brilliant Derek I have reported the blockhead

And remember this is what the Union has to comply with not an individual of the Union and that is where you are all making the mistakes legally

Right then let me help you out because you are struggling Trade Union Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 230 Conduct of Ballot (1) (a) 2 (a) (b)

@Normal yeah I might have been coerced into saying that

And I vote Labour JC4PM

Well I am white and I work now jog on racist scum

I missed a "not" out in my sentence it should read "and not an individual.

So basically we have people on here who think they know that what the Union did was illegal but cannot point to or quote the law which governs this. Outstanding I know the law which law it is the paragraph and subsection and I can assure you that this has to be against the CWU and an individual for it to have any credence whatsoever. That is why it is in my opinion a malicious complaint by RM

You are off topic Schleimel we are not discussing that in this thread

@Wolves how do you know it was without consent you have no proof

@Wolves that is the employees decision not the union no coercion involved in that at all

No you are wrong it would have to be enough to affect the overall ballot result this is trivial and they are not questioning the legitimacy of the wording on the ballot paper

@Wolves also it would have to be proved that the CWU have forced its members into such action. So having a photo of a postal worker marking a ballot paper would not constitute coercion in itself. I know this is going to be difficult for you because we are talking points of law so try to keep up

@Wolves it would have to be substantial enough to affect the overall ballot result and what they have is not

What law have they broken exactly oh font of all knowledge

It would have to be substantial enough to affect the overall ballot result. They are going to struggle and it is very desperate stuff and if they think that winning this will bring the employees on board they are very much mistaken. There will be a massive backlash you can be sure of that

Evidence of what exactly? And how legally is this wrong

Fruit on your second point that is not their argument though is it. They are saying that it would disrupt the election and their customers at Christmas. Again which law/Regulation has been violated I can find nothing

Fruit I will ask again, what law/Regulation have they broken exactly I have scoured the necessary legislation and can find nothing relevant