GROSS MISCONDUCT...THIS WILL AFFECT ANYONE READ THIS!

[stokes11eg]

Kidserge...you have to understand the difference between a court of law and an employment tribunal.

A tribunal understands that when a business suspects a member of staff of theft they do not have the time and resources to build a case that would stand up in a court of law.
If every business had that legal obligation...there would be no businesses therefore the ET does not look at or for evidence in the same way that a court does....it looks at the procedures the company uses and whether they were applied fairly.
Your use of a graphologist was unfortunately pointless because an ET could not reasonably expect an employer to use one....therefore the managers opinion was considered to be fair.
The ET is not saying that the manager was right or wrong....just that the use of his opinion as a reasonable judge of whether it was her signature was fair because you cannot expect employers to call in experts.

RM don't need to call in the expert. I got one and they got the report in front of them. Why then did the manager cannot identified the same signatures in court when asked to do so? Am I going insane here or everyone seem to think that RM still done the right thing?

No, Kidserge you are not going insane, but perhaps the language thing is creating problems, still think you are confusing a tribunal with a court of law, they are two completely different things! Calm down a little, and read through all the posts again--there is some good sound advice there!
also, if the lady feels her honesty has been impuned, and she can now afford it, she could consider taking out a private prosecution against R/M for defamation. This would be held in a court of law,,,,,, just a thought, but she should now speak to a Solicitor,with a view to doing just that, and clearing her reputation!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

RM don't need to call in the expert. I got one and they got the report in front of them. Why then did the manager cannot identified the same signatures in court when asked to do so? Am I going insane here or everyone seem to think that RM still done the right thing?

Thats the problem you proved after the fact that she was not guilty. In other words you presented evidence after she was dismissed. The tribunal wanted you to prove that the decision was unfair with the evidence RM had at the time, and whether their decision was reasonable given that evidence.

Did RM do the right thing - NO I don't think they did.

All we are trying to do is show you where we think you went wrong. But kudos too you for trying anyway not many would.

[Wessex]

I agree with Stokes , a visit to a solicitor with a view to compensation might be your next move.By the way, 99.9% of the people on here, I am sure, were supporting you and your friend.I am sorry the tribunal did not rule in your favour .

[kidserge]

RM don't need to call in the expert. I got one and they got the report in front of them.

After she was sacked.....
For the last time kidserge....the ET was judging whether the sacking was fair...at the time she was sacked based on the evidence RM had at the time they sacked her....NOT IF SHE ACTUALLY STOLE THE MONEY.

For the last time dude! I have said this a million times. BEFORE they sacked her I already hired a Graphologist to tell them the signature is different. They have a report to say different signature before they made the decision. Hence they have the evidence at the time before thy sacked her and they sack her because they believe she steals the money and the proof they have is that the signature is same. Do you understand?

[kidserge]

I agree with Stokes , a visit to a solicitor with a view to compensation might be your next move.By the way, 99.9% of the people on here, I am sure, were supporting you and your friend.I am sorry the tribunal did not rule in your favour .

A solicitor did not want to know either. The advise I got from them is that the cost involved is not worth the risk because there is a small chance of winning. It is easier to fight for it if her salary and position is higher than being a lowly postlady. No I'm not going to pay for it again.

Again they RM treated her badly. The internal investigator was intimidating and I was not allowed to talk to her when she came out from their interrogation. Even I got yelled at by one of them when I try to ask her colleague what is going on. When they arrived at the house. To search and I was there as well their demeanour was so rude. They barged right in wearing their shoes on knowing we all take off our shoes first. They grab her bank statement and bank book just like that and did not ask. They then sent us a letter asking us to confirm they did take it. They searched therough the whole room and she was in distress. They did not even have search warrant and she got intimidated to agree to be searhed. Where the he'll is justice for the aggressor RM?

[Tman]

The correct procedure is to prove the signatures are not the same. RM said her signatures look the same. I employed a professional graphologist to prove the signature is different.

The "professional graphologist" didn't prove any such thing...it's his opinion, and the others present disagreed.

That is the only so called evidence that they have at the time of dismissing her. And the appeal manager says something like "although the graphologist disagree, to my mind, the signature looks the same" and the judgement is based on that.

So there you go, that's the judgement and your version of events.
Trouble is, there's more unexplained "holes" in your version. Who (for instance) paid her enough money to retire on, for this info you had? Why, if you're so hot on justice etc do you not know the purpose they intend to use this info for? Didn't it strike you as odd that someone would pay that much for this info?
You appear to realise it could be some sort of scam, yet you don't care enough to find out before selling it?
How come other posties have not been sacked for similar situations, yet your's has?

[kidserge]

The "professional graphologist" didn't prove any such thing...it's his opinion, and the others present disagreed.

Professional graphologist conduct the analysis and proved that the signature is from different hand. The manager is not a professional and he should not disagree with the graphologist unless he has another handwriting expert to say otherwise.

So there you go, that's the judgement and your version of events.
Trouble is, there's more unexplained "holes" in your version. Who (for instance) paid her enough money to retire on, for this info you had? Why, if you're so hot on justice etc do you not know the purpose they intend to use this info for? Didn't it strike you as odd that someone would pay that much for this info?
You appear to realise it could be some sort of scam, yet you don't care enough to find out before selling it?
How come other posties have not been sacked for similar situations, yet your's has?

[/quote]

That's not my version of events. That is what happened.
Who paid her enough money to retire on?
- I don't know and I am not interested in knowing. As long as she gets the money that all matters.

Why, if you're so hot on justice etc do you not know the purpose they intend to use this info for?
Because we are not getting the justice and she got made a scapegoat and being unfairly dismissed. And similar to above, because she gets the money and this will serve as a form of compensation.

Didn't it strike you as odd that someone would pay that much for this info?
No and not interested either. She got unfairly dismissed, and now she gets the compensation. It can be used for press purposes or could be scam. Either way, I do not care anymore seeing as no one is willing to help.

You appear to realise it could be some sort of scam, yet you don't care enough to find out before selling it?
Not really, the loss is ultimately Royal Mail not her. We make sure we deleted all her personal details before passing on the information.

How come other posties have not been sacked for similar situations, yet your's has?
On the contrary, 15 people has been dismissed so far in her branch. The appeal manger said he has 100s of case and only 10 of them has been reinstated out of the 100s.

I just wish that something like this happen to you so you know how it feels. It is very well telling me "prove that the dismissal is unfair bla bla bla" but yet, no one exactly tells me how. This case is really simple, she has been dismissed because of stealing and their evidence is the signatures. And I repeat once again, they have the graphologist report saying the signature is different before they dismiss them and before they conduct the appeal interview. So don't generalise with me, tell me how you would have done differently.

By your type advice, I can even advise PM himself "Improve the country's economy". "Make NHS better". "Give each person £1m", "Improve this and that...."

[Tman]

So don't generalise with me, tell me how you would have done differently.

Sticking to the point and being concise, (ie not ranting about East and West, useless union, hypocritical justice, etc etc, )understanding how the ET system works, but most of all, not mentioning fraudulent/criminal acts involving your employer on a public forum?
How's that for starters?

[kidserge]

So don't generalise with me, tell me how you would have done differently.

Sticking to the point and being concise, (ie not ranting about East and West, useless union, hypocritical justice, etc etc, )understanding how the ET system works, but most of all, not mentioning fraudulent/criminal acts involving your employer on a public forum?
How's that for starters?

Maybe I was not clear even though I have mentioned it a thousand times already. Talking to you is like talking to the IB and managers. Nothing goes into their head (or maybe they don't want to ). Or perhaps you are having a laugh. But for the sake of clarity I REPEAT

IN THE COURT ROOM (Meaning when I was in the court room)
I DID NOT (meaning this did not happen in the court) rant about EAST and WEST, useless union, hypocritical justice (I actually said "hyprocrisy of democracy" IN THE FORUM NOT(meaning no) in the COURT). I UNDERSTAND (meaning comprehend, aware of) I must prove that the decision was not fair. I have done this by telling the court that the managers have the graphologist report before they made the decision to sack her. I got them to tell me in the court room which signature they think looks the same and they say "It looks the same at that time but not now". So, this is proving that their decision is not fair. It all bogs down to ONE (not two or three but one as in the number 1) thing, the signatures.

IN THE FORUM
YES I did (meaning, agree or affirmative) rant about EAST and WEST, useless union, hypocritical justice (I actually say "hyprocrisy of democracy"). This is to vent out my frustration about how justice system has failed. That's my opinion and if you disagree I can't stop you.

YOU
I remember Frankie Boyle asks an audience what is his occupation. The answer was "Consultant" to which FB asks "What consultant?" and he says "Managing Consultant". You are just like that consultant. "So what shall we do about our management?" you would say "Staff" Company: "More staff?" You: "Maybe". You should be more concise not me.

YOUR THOUGHTS
Again I always say that I am not responsible for people's thought. Who, when and what makes you think RM is my employer? Give it 10 years max and it will come crashing down. You assume I sell the info to a fraudster, no one knows if he is a fraudster. He could be a press or researcher. That's your opinion and do not assume. Assumptions is the mother of all f*&k ups. You act like the manager already or maybe you are one of them.

MY THOUGHTS
I am explaining a simple fact in this forum and yet people still get confused. Imagine the postlady trying to explain stuff to them and English her fifth language. So tell me if you can and be more PRECISE, what would you have done. Maybe I have just covered your starters now give me the main course.

[MinisterofCucumber]

My advise to you? If IB questions you about missing items, say you can't remember a thing (even if you can) or get a lawyer there.

This is good advice. IB rely on surprise to unsettle their targets. If you are innocent, you will be genuinely surprised and the natural reaction is to talk and cooperate to clear your name. The trouble is that IB will have planned the way they want the conversation to go and will be trying to get you to make statements that will support their case. In other words, by the time they decide to pull someone, they already think the person is guilty.

"I want to speak to a lawyer" is the best thing to say when confronted by IB.