Sacked Fife postman David Mitchell seals deal with Royal Mail

[TrueBlueTerrier]

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/lo ... oyal-mail/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A deal struck between a sacked Cupar postman and Royal Mail has ended a long-running dispute and the threat of strike action.

Almost two years after being unfairly dismissed, David Mitchell, who was accused of stealing mail, reached an agreement with his former employer.

Royal Mail was ordered by a judge to pay the 58-year-old compensation of more than £56,000 after it refused to give him his job back, but the settlement was said to fall far short of lost earnings.

Anger at his treatment prompted strikes by former colleagues at Cupar delivery office and workers were being balloted for industrial action across a wider area including Fife, Edinburgh and Falkirk.


Mr Mitchell refused to give details of the deal, but thanked those who had supported him during his ordeal.

He was sacked in December 2014 after 27 years of service but an employment tribunal judge found Royal Mail had insufficient evidence.

The firm refused to reinstatement him, as ordered, and at a later hearing was told to compensate him instead.

Mr Mitchell, of Chance Inn, near Cupar, could not be reached for comment yesterday but announced the deal on Facebook, which he said brought closure to a long and upsetting saga.

He posted: “An agreement between myself and Royal Mail has been reached and there will be no more said about the matter.

“I would like to thank all you amazing people who have supported me and my family from the start of this journey and continue to do so, as well as all the hard working posties out there who have been behind me, and a special mention to the Cupar posties who went out on strike on two separate occasions for me, thanks guys.”

Colleagues and customers were furious at Royal Mail’s refusal to adhere to the initial outcome of the tribunal and return Mr Mitchell to his post.

The Communications Workers Union was balloting members for strike action across the Fife, Edinburgh, Galashiels and Falkirk postcode areas when talks between Royal Mail and the CWU’s national organiser Ray Ellis resulted in a proposal which Mr Mitchell accepted.

CWU branch secretary Kenny Logan, who previously called the case one of the biggest injustices ever involving Royal Mail and its membership, said: “We wanted reinstatement or to reach a satisfactory conclusion to this case.

“We believe that has now been done with the help of our national organiser.”

Due to a confidentiality clause, he was unable to reveal details, however, he said he intended to press for action to protect against cases like Mr Mitchell’s arising again.

He said Royal Mail’s investigation was flawed and said: “As a committee, we are looking put a motion to next year’s CWU conference for the postal executive to sit down with the business and look at the way the Royal Mail investigation branch handle and deal with cases to avoid this happening again.”

A Royal Mail spokeswoman said: “Royal Mail and Mr Mitchell have reached an agreement.

“The matter is now closed and we will not be commenting any further.”

[brentford]

just think of the stress that this man has been under trying too clear his name.
great that his colleagues have supported him throughout gives you some idea of his innocence .
This could happen too anyone one of us being set up too get shot off you.

[Lincox]

As shareholders do we not have the right to know the extent that Royal Mail Executives have had to increase their offer to appease David, and do we not have the right to hold these people to account for placing the business in such a position that belittles the way they treat staff and effects the way staff look at their employer.

[Spedley]

Good, I'm glad it is sorted at last. It also looks like RM may at the very least be slightly more careful with collecting evidence in the future.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

As shareholders do we not have the right to know the extent that Royal Mail Executives have had to increase their offer to appease David, and do we not have the right to hold these people to account for placing the business in such a position that belittles the way they treat staff and effects the way staff look at their employer.

sadly no. http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/what-ri ... older-have" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The main rights which usually attach to shares are:

To attend general meeting and vote
Typically shares carry one vote each but there may be non-voting shares or shares with multiple votes. Some shares may carry the right to vote only in particular circumstances. See below for the statutory provisions on voting rights. Note also the statutory rights a shareholder has to appoint a proxy to attend and vote at a general meeting, to requisition a general meeting, to have a written resolution circulated to the members.

To a share of the company's profits
The distribution of profits is paid by means of a dividend of a certain amount paid on each share. A dividend may be paid only if the company has made profits and to the extent that it decides to distribute them. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, dividends must be paid in proportion to the shares held by each shareholder, but it is becoming increasingly common for articles to provide that the company's shares are divided into different classes and for the directors (or shareholders) to be able to vary the dividends allocated to these classes.

To a final distribution on winding up
If the company is wound up and all the creditors are paid, the remaining assets are available for division among the members. This may be in two stages: (1) a return of capital; (2) distribution of surplus capital. Some shares may be given a priority as to one or both of these, or excluded from participation in any surplus.

To receive a copy of the company's annual accounts
(These need not now be presented at an Annual General Meeting)

That the company be run lawfully
i.e. in accordance with the Companies Act, the general law and the company's constitution.
In most circumstances only the members of the company will have the legal right to sue to make the company act lawfully, and even they may be restricted in their ability to sue under the common law rule in Foss v Harbottle. This is a complex area beyond the scope of this database.

[Lincox]

So if we are entitled to a copy of the company accounts, I would assume that somewhere within those accounts will be an amount for compensations paid to staff throughout the year. I guess it will not apportion this to any individual but you would imagine that the compo for David will be in the six figure bracket and should increase the amount paid out over previous years amounts.