GRIEVANCE UPDATE - CHARGE DETAILS

[sunshine.on.leith]

The charge of Intentional Delay of Mail on (date)

Penalty - Summary Dismissal

These are the brief reasons for dismissal, I have had to remove names for obvious reasons.

OPG can provide no reasonable explanation for non delivery of a close (front door controlloed by secured entry system). DOM states he tried service mid afternoon and it worked. He also states that after the (date) above he again visited the close after 10am and gained accesss. Also only 2 letters endorsed N/A explaining no access.

States he had no reasonable explanation for a letter addressed to a semi, OPG explained that it may have been m/s to close of same No. on his walk. States it had no endorsement on the letter, where it leaves him no explanation for the non delivery of this item.

He accepted non delivery for other items that were endorsed.

He also considered a lesser penalty however intentional delay is not only a serious offence but a criminal offence.

OPG's explanation

He was on a walk with over 75 closes, this was one of 2/3 that he didn't get access to. Floater postie struggles to gain access also. He took pics of controlled entry system and even other posties could not locate service button as it is located within the flat buttons. 1st 2 letters endorsed as they were banded together and would have been offically endorse back in the depot.

Letter to semi - simple explanation that it was m/s, It was endorsed inc(address incomplete), which explains his reason that it was m/s to the close.

OPG never been in any form of stage discipline. Yet dismissal was the outcome.

He has APPEALLED!

There was never a mention that he took the mail and stored it in his car as the PO was shut. This was the reason he was charged in the first place.



Any advice please guys. He has other grounds for appeal but cannot go into detail as we are 100% sure these would get back to the office before his appeal.

[vigilante]

Wilful delay is very hard to prove really--actual INTENTIONAL DELAYING of mail!!
However keeping it in any private vehicle is a no no he should of put the item back into the system if the PO was closed ie post box.
This person never intentionally delayed the mail so the manager should have no case.
it is up to the mangers to prove it was wilful!!

[kay_thebigbird]

The charge of Intentional Delay of Mail on (date)

Penalty - Summary Dismissal

These are the brief reasons for dismissal, I have had to remove names for obvious reasons.

OPG can provide no reasonable explanation for non delivery of a close (front door controlloed by secured entry system). DOM states he tried service mid afternoon and it worked. He also states that after the (date) above he again visited the close after 10am and gained accesss. Also only 2 letters endorsed N/A explaining no access.

States he had no reasonable explanation for a letter addressed to a semi, OPG explained that it may have been m/s to close of same No. on his walk. States it had no endorsement on the letter, where it leaves him no explanation for the non delivery of this item.

He accepted non delivery for other items that were endorsed. Appeals procedure is a joke yet again RM managers they kept me sacked with no evidence what so ever,I am sorry to be a killjoy if your face don't fit they will do whatever it takes to keep you sacked even LIE, your only fair chance is ET mine is in May,also the more service you have the more they want you out, RM managers stick together appeals procedure total STITCH UP.

He also considered a lesser penalty however intentional delay is not only a serious offence but a criminal offence.

OPG's explanation

He was on a walk with over 75 closes, this was one of 2/3 that he didn't get access to. Floater postie struggles to gain access also. He took pics of controlled entry system and even other posties could not locate service button as it is located within the flat buttons. 1st 2 letters endorsed as they were banded together and would have been offically endorse back in the depot.

Letter to semi - simple explanation that it was m/s, It was endorsed inc(address incomplete), which explains his reason that it was m/s to the close.

OPG never been in any form of stage discipline. Yet dismissal was the outcome.

He has APPEALLED!

There was never a mention that he took the mail and stored it in his car as the PO was shut. This was the reason he was charged in the first place.



Any advice please guys. He has other grounds for appeal but cannot go into detail as we are 100% sure these would get back to the office before his appeal.

[kay_thebigbird]

Appeals procedure is a joke yet again RM managers they kept me sacked with no evidence what so ever,I am sorry to be a killjoy if your face don't fit they will do whatever it takes to keep you sacked even LIE, your only fair chance is ET mine is in May,also the more service you have the more they want you out, RM managers stick together appeals procedure total STITCH UP.

[brothermagrew]

Appeals procedure is a joke yet again RM managers they kept me sacked with no evidence what so ever,I am sorry to be a killjoy if your face don't fit they will do whatever it takes to keep you sacked even LIE, your only fair chance is ET mine is in May,also the more service you have the more they want you out, RM managers stick together appeals procedure total STITCH UP.

As much as I expected from RM management looks very like they will close ranks and YES lie if need be to get a result, albeit the wrong one. I am increasingly becoming of the opinion that all these appeal processes should be done by an independent party outwith Royal Mail and CWU. Although RM can state their case likewise the CWU can state theirs at the appeal case.

This way we can get a total independent verdict result may not be what one wants but then the bias has been totally removed as the appeal case is not being held by a more senior RM manager.

kay thebigbird sorry to hear about your own individual troubles but I most sincerely hope that you get your justice at your upcoming Employment Tribunal in May, till then stay strong and as me auld mucker L Tommo often says never let the B's grind you down. Do keep us posted on any outcome and with the best of good wishes from all the CWU brethren good luck.

[Throgg]

OPG can provide no reasonable explanation for non delivery of a close (front door controlloed by secured entry system). DOM states he tried service mid afternoon and it worked. He also states that after the (date) above he again visited the close after 10am and gained accesss. Also only 2 letters endorsed N/A explaining no access.

The DOM went to the close and gained access, so what?

Was it at the same time of day you were there? Service buttons are only on for set times, not all day.

Was the door entry system working the day you couldn't gain access? Perhaps the door entry system wasn't working that day, it happens.

The DOM is making assumptions, he's not proving anything.

States he had no reasonable explanation for a letter addressed to a semi, OPG explained that it may have been m/s to close of same No. on his walk. States it had no endorsement on the letter

You state the letter was endorsed. If it clearly states on the letter that it's a missort or incomplete address, then that's the reason for non delivery. If the DOM states otherwise, ask him to look at the letter in question.

On a side note, do not post too much detail here, it might jeapordise your friends case.

[kay_thebigbird]

kay thebigbird sorry to hear about your own individual troubles but I most sincerely hope that you get your justice at your upcoming Employment Tribunal in May, till then stay strong and as me auld mucker L Tommo often says never let the B's grind you down. Do keep us posted on any outcome and with the best of good wishes from all the CWU brethren good luck.

Cheers brothermagrew if I would have had Independant appeal would have won it hands down,but not to worry I am well ready for my ET lets see them tell all their lies to a BARRISTER I can't wait.

[brothermagrew]

kay thebigbird sorry to hear about your own individual troubles but I most sincerely hope that you get your justice at your upcoming Employment Tribunal in May, till then stay strong and as me auld mucker L Tommo often says never let the B's grind you down. Do keep us posted on any outcome and with the best of good wishes from all the CWU brethren good luck.

Cheers brothermagrew if I would have had Independant appeal would have won it hands down,but not to worry I am well ready for my ET lets see them tell all their lies to a BARRISTER I can't wait.

You go for it gal and regardless of the outcome come out of it with your head held high.

[norbert]

Appeals procedure is a joke yet again RM managers they kept me sacked with no evidence what so ever,I am sorry to be a killjoy if your face don't fit they will do whatever it takes to keep you sacked even LIE, your only fair chance is ET mine is in May,also the more service you have the more they want you out, RM managers stick together appeals procedure total STITCH UP.

RM work backwards i.e. Verdict =Guilty , "Charge" , "Evidence " to support charge to one conclusion , it's not so much moving the goalposts but relocating the pitch . These territorial instuitionalized idiots in charge have to realize they are not running prisons or borstals and this too literal and autocratic farcical nonsense isn't above the law . Good luck to anyone who calls these idiots bluff! but I'd imagine it wouldn't occur to them that anybody would .

At one time , more Senior Management cowardly threw their junior managers( who were only taking their orders in the first place or trying to impress) to the wolves to save their sorry skins when it became patently obvious even to them there was too many amanoalies , holes , more questions than answers etc, etc to wriggle out of .

The orders from RM's "Brain's Trust " are not to undermine local managers as RM Doh finally have realized they've a problem so they insist on petulantly and churlishly backing themselves into the same corner.

It's actually worse than arrogance this acting as judge , prosecution and jury , you've got this surreal unreality with these pathetic Alsop's fables about what people have supposed to have done . It's just a juvenile game to them , self over sense if they're stupid enough to believe anyone would fall for this rubbish .

Very underhand , disgraceful and pathetic , I hope a Barrister has these sad " individuals" for breakfast and adverse publicity shows these pathetic excuses for men for what they really are ;Definitely a culture of fear which goes all the way up to those spivs and chancers at Old St .

It's definitely a union bashing agenda , RM know they can be taken for detriment for legitimate union activity , that's why the charges are deliberately vague & obscure to TRY and circumvent employment law

;hopelessly deluded Siege Mentality management of the very worst sort ,I don't think RM care about adverse publicity , these people play the percentage game , they'll consider five figure compensation figures as a worthwhile price to pay to get rid of "troublemakers " , it's just a childish self justification exercise to deter other people from standing as reps or standing up to RM . " We will defend our position in any tribunal " .

Usually people play politics as a smokescreen for not being able to manage . , RM is like a ship with no rudder in a permanent crisis mode

There's cases like Karen Reissemann with the NHS , some of these Wolfies like her love playing the martyr and some secretly hope the union won't back them so they can play that game but a lot of senior Union officials realize it could be anyone on the end of a dodgy 70's police style old fashioned fit up just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time .

[norbert]

Wilful delay is very hard to prove really--actual INTENTIONAL DELAYING of mail!!
However keeping it in any private vehicle is a no no he should of put the item back into the system if the PO was closed ie post box.
This person never intentionally delayed the mail so the manager should have no case.
it is up to the mangers to prove it was wilful!!

RM's non too typical stance l sounds very arrogant/ & presumptuous/ oversimplistic purely to impress and to a contrived foregone conclusion , make their arrogance their achilles heel, it's a very dangerous game for RM to play but that's their instuitionalized stupidity.

That summary posted just sounds like very typical RM questions from on high with desired RM correct answers hence all the holes and contradictions that can be challenged .

A Senior RM manager when the over the road site had a forum admitted "we've a problem with trust "