Prenton Delivery office (tribunal update)

[therealgeezy]

It appears that the manager who instigated and disciplined 12 postal workers for gross misconduct has been suspended since early November. He allegedly siphoned a hire van which was supposed to be used for the Prenton Delivery Office for his own personal use. As a Delivery Office Manager he would of been aware on the policy of hire vans and personal use. Maybe he thought that he was untouchable and the rules don’t apply to him. It wasn’t a one off he allegedly used the van for a period of time.

You wonder if the business find this behaviour acceptable and what action will be taken. Managers are supposed to act with honesty, integrity and lead by example.

This unfair sacking of postal workers has cost Royal Mail a large of amount of money, firstly the legal team preparing the case before hand, having to interview all the managers to get their side of the story. Then the legal team would have to attend the tribunal to defend the business. Which, they lost, leading to compensation being paid to staff via a remedy bundle, including backdated pay from June 2023 to January 2025. Added to this is the hours spent by a number of managers perusing this gross misconduct charge, including interviewing all the staff involved.

In reality the sackings could and should of been stopped straight away. It would have been better for the staff who were put through this process, it would of saved the business money.

The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the four claimants under oath, and on behalf of the respondent it heard from Jake Nurse, Operations Performance Lead, Dismissing Manager, and Rebecca Rees, Independent Case Manager who heard the appeals.

Instead of stopping the process both the management and appeals team simply followed the narrative set out by the suspended Manager, looking for evidence to support his version of events, they played lip service or ignored any evidence that didn’t suit. The sacked staff had worked up to 44 years’ service for Royal Mail, and all had unblemished record’s. Yet a reason given by managers and Rebecca Rees for dismissal was because they lacked any genuine remorse.


There judgement in this matter must be looked into, were they incompetent, biased or just incapable of believing that a manager may be mistaken. Surely a senior manager or HR would off looked at the facts before the dismissal stage.


The tribunal could see all the issue’s of Royal Mail guidelines that the appeals process missed or ignored. The inconsistency, to why different members of staff were treated differently for the same offence.
It also mentioned that the suspended manager evidence raised credibility issues.


Below is an article from the Liverpool Echo and the notes from the tribunal findings for background information.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... e-31057265


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... Others.pdf


Here are some notes from the conclusion

Appeals 106. All four claimants appealed and the appeals were heard by Rebecca Rees, an experienced independent caseworker having heard around 250 appeals. Unlike Jake Nurse, Rebecca Rees was independent and came to the disciplinary process with no knowledge of any of the events that gave rise to the dismissals. The ACAS Code of Practice was complied with. Each claimant was supported by a union representative.

107. In her witness Statement Rebecca Rees refers to ten employees being originally investigated, eight of whom were taken through the formal process, of which six were dismissed (including the claimants). The evidence before me was that there were originally twelve not ten employees investigated, ND resigned during the process which left eleven. Four employees were dismissed, two were given suspended dismissals (with one of those transferred out of the unit), two were given warnings (a one year and two year serious warning respectively), two employees were not issued with any penalty and one employee was referred to first line and the outcome was not referenced in any of the paperwork before Rebecca Rees, who did not address her mind to the possibility that she needed to address parity of punishment for what was essentially the same offence, for example, why would a condition that fell under the Equality At 2010 and/or not attending one or two of the relevant briefings result in no penalty? Rebecca Rees did not ask herself why an employee who attended one briefing only was issued with no penalty and yet employees who had a different understanding as to what had been said at the second briefing were dismissed following an oral instruction which gave room for misunderstanding. Rebecca Rees did not investigate whether postal workers who were not dismissed had a pre-existing conduct record, for example, DS was already on a live serious warning and had attended the Caernarvon Castle during the period covered by the two social media posts and yet notification 4 was not upheld against him and he was not dismissed. An appeal officer behaving reasonably when objectively assessing the evidence would be looking for written corroboration of the instruction and notification that if it was ignored, dismissal for gross misconduct could follow. The failure by Jake Nurse to grapple with the consequences of the respondent’s omission to document anything in writing concerning the instructions regarding breaks and how they could be taken pending agreement being reached with the unions, was repeated by Rebecca Rees, who did not put this fundamental unfairness right in addition to other matter set out above.

119. As in the case of all the claimants. Rebecca Rees did not refer to any Policies or Procedures during the appeal hearing and she did not take into account the fact that there is no written provision for employees to maintain confidentiality during a “precautionary suspension” other than the reference in the suspension letter. In the National Conduct Procedure Agreement version 3 August 2015, and 2 January 2028 a “Precautionary suspension” is described as; “not a formal penalty and it does not suggest any prejudgment.” In relation to the non exhaustive list of gross misconduct there is no reference to maintaining confidentiality during a precautionary suspension. Finally, there is no reference to confidentiality when under precautionary suspension in the Contract of Employment which does provide for confidentiality of commercial agreements. Rebecca Rees did not question the basis on which the claimants who allegedly discussed the suspension at McDonalds could be found guilty of gross misconduct given the lack of any forewarning that such a discussion could amount to misconduct that may result in dismissal. Rebecca Rees did not question the effect of the information set out in the 23 June 2023 precautionary suspension letters that were scanty in the information provided concerning “absences from point of duty where you met with colleagues in the Swan car park…” with no indication that if the allegations were discussed employees could be dismissed. Rebecca Rees gave no thought as to the contradiction in the respondent’s Policy that a precautionary suspension does not suggest any prejudgment and the respondent’s belief that the employees meeting to discuss the allegations could be fabricating a response, and how this may undermine the right of employees to arrange joint union representation and gather up information to prepare their defence, which was the case at McDonalds evidenced by the photograph of a mobile phone in the middle of the table used to make contact with the union.


138.1 A confusion as to what was said by (suspended manager) on the 20 June 2023 which Jake Nurse resolved by supporting (suspended manager) version of events without asking a key witness who was likely to be objective, James McGovern, about what he could recall about the words used by Chris Nichol and whether the Swan car park was mentioned in addition to the Caernarvon Caste car park. Jake Nurse was involved on the 21 June 2023 when (suspended manager) raised his concerns about employees parked in the Swan car park. Jake Nurse did not seek to investigate whether the recollection of (suspended manager) as to what he had said on the 20 June 2023 could be relied on, preferring to accept his evidence against a backdrop of two complaints made on social media about postal workers meeting in the Caernarvon castle public house before the managerial instruction was given by Aaron Bolger on the 12 June 2023 and complied with immediately.

138.4 A dismissing officer acting fairly within the band of reasonable responses would have taken the lack of any written policy and procedure on congregating in a public place (including inside public house and outside in a car park used by the public) into account, concluding that at the very minimum Aaron Bolger and Suspended manager should have confirmed the new rule in writing given they were deviating from an accepted and recognised custom and practice for which a breach could result in summary dismissal. (Suspended Manager) is clearly capable of confirming the position, evidence by his email to other managers (and not to all employees including postal workers who were affected) on 26 June 2023 after the public complaint on social media and the gathering in the Swan car park. The wording of that email is key in that (suspended Manager) made reference to “I reiterated to staff, who I am aware have been told on previous occasions that it is not acceptable to be meeting for a communal break at any location…” Jake Nurse did not consider whether (suspended manager) reference to the history of postal workers gathering was reliable. He did not question the plural reference to employees being told on “previous occasions” when the reality is that the first time employees were instructed not to meet up in the Caernarvon Castel was in a ”huddle” on 21 June 2023. Jake Nurse ignored the part played by managers 35 RESERVED Case No. 2411643/2023 2411720/2023 2411718/2023 2411635/2023 when a dismissing officer acting reasonably would have taken into account the historical background including the lack of any clear instruction with regard to whether meeting in the Swan car park was going against the “spirit” of meeting inside the Caernarvon Castel public House
138.7 At the time the belief was formed the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation taking into account the confusion regarding decision to dismiss a proportion of those employees at the Swan car and issue warnings or take no action against others involved in the same incident. With reference to notification 1, Mr Chaudry submitted that the claimants intentionally defied the instruction given to them by (suspended manager), a view held by Jake Nurse, and yet the issue of defiance was not investigated.

145. Jake Nurse and Rebecca Rees paid lip service to the long continuity of service and clean employment record with no suggestion of any historical dishonestly or untruthful behaviour. Both ignored inquiries that pointed towards innocence, for example, the immediate response by the claimants when told by Aaron Bolger not to visit the Caernarvon Castle, James McGovern’s view on what was said by Chris Nichol on the 20 June 2023 and the total lack of any documentation including written policies and procedures relating to breaks and gathering during breaks against a historical background of meeting in public areas such as the Caernarvon Castle during legitimate breaks at the end of a shift. In addition, the claimants had been denied the opportunity of being able to contact potentially relevant witnesses from the suspension onwards, in the knowledge that they were facing disciplinary proceedings for discussing the case with colleagues who had also been suspended, as in the case of Ian Vermiglio, who did not hide the fact he been at McDonald’s and spoken to colleagues when he was there.

146. Given the substantive and procedural failings in this case, dismissing the four claimants for gross misconduct did not fall within the band of reasonable responses in the particular circumstances of this case. The term “gross misconduct” connotes the most serious types of misconduct, such as theft or violence, resulting in summary dismissal. Jake Nurse and Rebecca Rees gave evidence that the dishonesty of the first, second and third claimant in relation to the McDonalds meeting conduct that undermined the relationship of trust and confidence to such an extent that the claimants, for whom honesty was key as they were trusted to deliver the post, could not longer be trusted and remain in 39 RESERVED Case No. 2411643/2023 2411720/2023 2411718/2023 2411635/2023 employment. With the exception of the fourth claimant where inconsistency of sanction applied for the alleged misconduct was an issue, no other employee involved in the Swan car park incident had deceived the respondent about a meeting in McDonalds unlike the first, second and third claimant who had.

[dudek05]

There is nothing 'independent' about Rebecca Rees. Can't believe it's in her job title.

[therealgeezy]

There is nothing 'independent' about Rebecca Rees. Can't believe it's in her job title.

I totally agree, her role in this need’s explaining. If this is the standard of the internal appeals process in Royal Mail then clearly it isn’t fit for purpose.

Why did take a tribunal to point out and explain Royal Mail guidelines and policy to the internal experts. Considering they are suppose to be independent and impartial.

Royal Mail policy states that there is no reference to failing to follow any reasonable instruction of their manager is a sackable offence.

Why were the experts so gullible and never questioned the evidence given by the suspended manager, it was so important to get to the truth as people lost their jobs after being dismissed, while others chose to resign.

Below are notes from the tribunal

12. The respondent has nationally agreed standards for the conduct of its employees and these standards are set out in the National Conduct Procedure Agreement between Royal Mail Group and CWU and Unite-CMA version 3 August 2015 and a Royal Mail Conduct Policy set out in a document tiled “Our Business Standards an Employee’s Guide.” The “Guiding Principles” expressly include that “no employee will be dismissed for a first breach of conduct except in the case of gross misconduct when the penalty will normally be dismissal without notice or payment in lieu of notice” [my emphasis].

13. Gross misconduct is defined as “some types of behaviour are so serious and unacceptable, if proved, to warrant dismissal without notice…it is not possible to construct a definitive list.” The examples of gross misconduct include “deliberate disregard of health, safety and security procedures or instructions.” In the list there is no reference to failing to follow any reasonable instruction of their manager” in the non-definitive list.

[sounds]

Its not surprising to me that HR don't know their own procedures and yet now they are supposed to be more professional and educationally qualified now.

I can only advise that if anyone ends up appealing a decision they stick to their guns for a fully independent review.

In this case I would be asking more questions such as...

Where was the CWU in this?... No mention of support or help for the workers wrongfully dismissed and obvious "rogue" managers ideal to go for.
It was a free hit the CWU could have landed on the management.
One for Dave Ward methinks.

As for the tribunal, you only need to google Royal Mail and tribunals and you see they hardly win any. all that time and money wasted and it happens all the time.

[therealgeezy]

Managers have an important role for all staff, they are responsible for using the discipline process fairly; it mustn’t be used to single out staff to prove a point or get back at them (in this case members of staff were treated differently, for the same offence). Otherwise it could be seen as an abuse of power.

The amount of times while watching the CWU live stream, they mentioned rouge managers and how the business needs to deal with them. This case is a prime example. The previous post is correct; this is a free hit for the CWU to point out bad practice. Or is it the case that the CWU are content with management behaving this way

The CWU is great about talking about things, I would like some action. This case has shown that you cannot rely on the internal process or appeals managers for fairness or neutrality.

Only Karma has put this right, the person who started and instigated the sackings for gross misconduct, now finds himself suspended, for allegedly using a hire van for his personal use. It wasn’t a one off but a number of times over a period of time.

Will he get away with it. That will depend on the managers above him, will they turn a blind eye again and back him 100% with no questions asked about his behaviour.

There are plenty of decent managers who try their best, and are fair, honest and consistence, it’s a shame that a few rotten apples let them down.