LEGAL VICTORIES

RMT helpline 0800 3763706 :: may 2008 :: RMTnews 27 A n Employment Appeals Tribunal in Martland v Cooperative Insurance Society case has found that redundancy dismissals were in fact dismissals for some other substantial reason. The tribunal considered whether a dismissal, when the workforce is immediately offered re-engagement on new terms and conditions of employment, amounts to a 'redundancy' dismissal, entitling the workforce to redundancy payments. The employees appealed, arguing that they had been dismissed because there was a reduction in the need for employees to do 'work of a particular kind', i.e. work under those terms and conditions. The EAT upheld the ET's decision, holding that 'work of a particular kind' referred to the generic type of job - in this case, insurance salesmen. The tribunal was entitled to find that the job was still essentially the same, despite the substantial changes to the terms and conditions of employment. • £20,220 secured for a track machine operator whose jaw was broken when his head became jammed in part of a machine. • £2,633 for a conductor who injured her wrist, arm and shoulder when she slipped on a pool of water on the train floor. • £100,000 for a maintenance worker who received 11 per cent his body when he suffered an electric shock climbing into a train unit that had not been isolated. He was unable to return to his job. The case exposed an unsafe system of work at the depot. • £3,000 each paid to six members who claimed unfair dismissal after being made redundant by an employer who switched to using contractors to do their work. • Significant settlement on behalf of members at Lynx/UPS over the employer’s failure to inform and consult. Dear editor, In November 2004, I made an application for legal assistance in the case of my father, Virgilio Giacomini, who had just been diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma and died in January, 2005. The case of the disease was attributed to his attendance at the Nuneaton rail crash on June 6 1975 and the defendants subsequently admitted liability in his case. The case was directed to Mark Wright. I am now pleased to report that settlement has been agreed and my mother will receive an award shortly. I write to express the thanks of the family to the union for taking up our case and to say we are extremely grateful to Mr Wright for the way he steadfastly and efficiently dealt with the matter. Throughout the past three and a half years Mr Wright dealt promptly with any queries I raised. He always kept me advised of the progress and, in particular, has always shown sensitivity and respected that, as a family, we always acted in the best interests of our mother. I understand Mr Wright has now transferred to Thompson’s solicitors who will, in future, be undertaking cases. I therefore want to let you know how grateful we are to the union and, in particular, to Mr Wright. Yours faithfully Ida Cash Dear editor, I am writing to say a big thank you to both RMT and Bridge MacFarland solicitors for their help during my claim fir injuries I sustained on a foot crossing at Crewe back in December 2005. I was off work for thirteen weeks whilst recovering from a head and neck injury but RMT and John MacDonald and, in particular, Zoe Thornton from Bridge MacFarland were very professional in their approach to my claim. The claim has now been settled to my satisfaction which I believe would have been made much harder outside RMT. Thank you. Regards Mark Testrow Driver, Crewe U nion solicitors Thompsons recently reported the successful conclusion of an injury compensation claim, winning around £19,000 for a member. Whilst the member was walking along a lane his foot went into a large pothole in the roadway causing him to fall. He suffered multiple injuries including a broken orbit, injuries to his arms, legs, ribs, face, nose mouth and bruising to his stomach. The other side’s insurers refuse to negotiate a settlement and it was necessary to commence court proceedings. Satisfactory settlement terms were agreed and the member was awarded the compensation. Cases such as this show the value of the union’s legal service. It also shows that the union is prepared to take cases that claims companies and no win/no fee solicitors will not. DEFINING THE WORD 'REDUNDANT' UNION WINS INJURY COMPENSATION LEGAL VICTORIES IN BRIEF SATISFACTION IN CREWE MESOTHELIOMA COMPENSATION BATTLE LEGAL