Former postie loses unfair dismissal claim

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Former postie loses unfair dismissal claim following £2500 taxi bill

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/111497-form ... taxi-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


A Glasgow postman has lost his claim for unfair dismissal after running up almost £2,500 on a Royal Mail taxi account.

Thomas McCafferty was sacked when he charged the company's taxi account for trips from his Dumbarton home to his depot in the west end of the city when he struggled to get a lift to work.

However, he had only been authorised to use the account when working on his scheduled day-off on four or five occasions and was sacked for gross misconduct.

Having sued for unfair dismissal, Mr McCafferty has now been denied compensation following an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision.

Mr McCafferty, who worked for Royal Mail for 19 years, had been given the account details when asked to work a day off in September 2009 but continued to charge taxi rides to the company when he began to find it difficult to get a lift to work from passing Royal Mail vans.

Appeal judge, Lady Smith said: "He would go out to wait for a van to pass in the morning and, if one did not do so, he would return home and call a taxi, giving his name and address, but using the respondent's account to do so.

"He took taxis on 87 occasions between September 2009 and October 2010, at a total cost to the respondents of £2,422.80. Latterly, he was using a taxi almost every day."

Mr McCafferty was questioned by his employer in November 2010 and admitted using taxis to get to work. He said he did not know he was doing anything wrong.

But in the decision to sack him, delivery sector manager, Terry Gibb, said he did not believe Mr McCafferty's claim that he thought he was allowed to use the account. He concluded that Mr McCafferty knew what he was doing was wrong and had tried to conceal it by telling his manager he travelled to work in a van and not mentioning taxis when explaining his reasons for being late on occasions.

An employment tribunal dismissed the postie's claim for unfair dismissal last year and, after a legal challenge, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has now backed that decision.

Lady Smith concluded: "We are satisfied that there was clearly evidence which entitled the majority to conclude that the respondents had reasonable grounds for their belief, not only that the claimant had knowingly used their taxi account without authority, but that he tried to conceal from management the fact of his doing so."

[demon]

so he should be sacked were not bankers or mp.s

[NWpostie]

Why didn't he use a push bike or get a mate to pick him up ?

is it too far or difficult to get public transport ?

He could have offered to work at an Office nearest to his locality if available or change his shift.

There is a quite a bit about this I don't know about at this time ?

[fishtank]

87 occasions over the space of a year.
£2,422.80 before someone questioned it.
Kind of shows just how big RM's "expenses" bill must be and just how poor the checks are that this wouldn't be flagged up straight away.
Probably dwarfed by the management coffee and biscuit bill.

[motherhubbard]

Why didn't he use a push bike or get a mate to pick him up ?

is it too far or difficult to get public transport ?

As I understand it - the postie moved out to Dumbarton from Glasgow and yes it was too far to cycle and no-one else lived nearby for a lift.
He usually got a lift from a RM van travelling from Dumbarton to the Mail Centre.
He had been given the taxi account to enable him to work nightshifts.
For some reason the lift in a RM van stopped and he started using the taxi account to get to work.
He was one of several people caught using the taxi account "fraudulently" - apparently others were using it for non-work purposes.
Fishtank is right - there was no control over the account. One of the problems Mr Maccaferty faced was the fact that some of his taxi bills were for £15 and some for £30. The taxi firm knew there was no control and appeared to be ripping RM off as well. RM suggested he was in on this scam but couldn't prove it.
At his tribunal two people found against him whereas the other,legal person found he hadn't done anything wrong. The taxi picked him up at his house and dropped him off at work. There was nothing fraudulent in his behaviour - there was simply no accountability. That wasn't his fault. It was RM's fault.

[Red Robbo]

Did he get the support of the Union on this, if he did then he should think himself lucky for that, because they never back a claim unless it's 90% winnable

[subbie]

Two and a half grand, yet RM will pick up a legal Bill running into the tens of thousands, they won't get that back.

What was wrong with challenging the guy, proving he had done wrong, and asking him to repay. If he refused, then by all means sack him, but a lot of time and money could have been saved if sacking was not the default reaction, too much of this goes on within all parts of the RM Group.

Subbie

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Two and a half grand, yet RM will pick up a legal Bill running into the tens of thousands, they won't get that back.

What was wrong with challenging the guy, proving he had done wrong, and asking him to repay. If he refused, then by all means sack him, but a lot of time and money could have been saved if sacking was not the default reaction, too much of this goes on within all parts of the RM Group.

Subbie

he was given that option but refused then he went to tribunal

[motherhubbard]

Two and a half grand, yet RM will pick up a legal Bill running into the tens of thousands, they won't get that back.

What was wrong with challenging the guy, proving he had done wrong, and asking him to repay. If he refused, then by all means sack him, but a lot of time and money could have been saved if sacking was not the default reaction, too much of this goes on within all parts of the RM Group.

Subbie

he was given that option but refused then he went to tribunal

I heard he offered to pay it back but the offer was refused.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Two and a half grand, yet RM will pick up a legal Bill running into the tens of thousands, they won't get that back.

What was wrong with challenging the guy, proving he had done wrong, and asking him to repay. If he refused, then by all means sack him, but a lot of time and money could have been saved if sacking was not the default reaction, too much of this goes on within all parts of the RM Group.

Subbie

he was given that option but refused then he went to tribunal

I heard he offered to pay it back but the offer was refused.

if you heard that then you probably didnt hear he told the driver he was getting a lift from he didnt want a lift anymore either

[NWpostie]

There will always be three sides to every story, their side, his side and the truth, the Tribunal have obviously made its verdict.

It could have easily been prevented with a bit of proactivity on the Postman's part, highlight the problem early and get all agreements in WRITING, that way you cover your own back.

Never assume anything.

[General Mannerheim]

Poor chap had the misfortune of having the 3 judges sitting on his case,under the new Tory rules of a lone judge the decision would have been the other way around ,as the lay members out voted the chairman(for once) decision.

[NWpostie]

I don't think the tribunal has any vested interest, they found in favour of workers in the past as much as they have found against.

The Tribunals have to look at the facts of the case and the balance of probabilities of guilt, one or three doesn't make any difference, in fact three is better as you get less of a bias than if your fate rest on just one judge.

If he had won, nothing would have been said about how many judges there are on the bench.

IMO the guy brought it on himself, hindsight being what it is , its easy to be wise after the event, before you do anything that involves other peoples money especially corporate money, get confirmation in WRITING as to what you can or can't do with the account and how long it is valid for, Royal Mail couldn't argue the toss and the guy would have still have been in a job.

He could have volunteered to work in Dumbarton DO until he gets his car back.