'Bristol Three' sacked post worker gets job back

johnnyp · Post by **johnnyp** » 30 Sep 2008, 09:16

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bri ... ticle.html
'Bristol Three' sacked post worker gets job back
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 08:00
Be the first to comment

A postal worker who was sacked over allegations of misconduct and became known as one of the "Bristol Three" has won her job back after an out-of-court settlement with the Royal Mail.
Kay Gibbs, 40, was preparing to fight claims of offensive conduct while she was picketing at a national postal workers' strike last October.
The two-day hearing at Temple Meads Employment Tribunal was due to start yesterday.
However, Royal Mail bosses rang Ms Gibbs at the weekend to offer her a position in the Bedminster delivery office.
On Friday night they had initially refused to give her a job in south Bristol, offering her a job in Kingswood instead.
Ms Gibbs, from Withywood, said: "I was innocent and my barrister said I had a really strong case.
"I've been through a lot of stress, but now I've got the office that I wanted in Bedminster and I've got my own walk.
"I've been a postal worker for the past 14 years so I wasn't prepared to start from scratch again.
"They called me at 10.30 on Saturday morning to offer me the job. I was up for going ahead with the tribunal, but I would have lost everything if we didn't win – I'm owed about £14,000 in back pay.
"It's been really hard over the last year. I have gross misconduct next to my name so I couldn't get a job.
"I eventually found a temporary one at the airport, but I've had to borrow money from friends and my mum. And I've maxed out my credit card."
Now that the two-day hearing has been abandoned, Ms Gibbs can celebrate her son's birthday.
Toby, who lives in Withywood with his mother, turns four today.
Ms Gibbs was sacked along with Colin Tucker for alleged "gross misconduct, bullying and harassment" in November.
She then lost an internal appeal against the decision, which involved claims she had made offensive comments during the strike.
David Wilshire, of the Communication Workers' Union, which backed Ms Gibbs, said "This whole case has taken nearly a year to resolve.
"It is bizarre that it has taken the threat of an employment tribunal to make Royal Mail see sense about a case they were never going to win.
"We've said all along that their whole case has been built on sand."
Royal Mail spokesman Tom Prendergast said: "I can confirm the employee has been reinstated. However, Royal Mail does not comment on the details of individual cases."
Colin Tucker is alleged to have hit a Royal Mail van being driven by a manager during the strike. He has been back in his job for about a month.
And Paula Franklin has been reinstated after being sacked from her job in Avonmouth after allegedly posting an offensive comment about company bosses on a postal workers' website.

andy2007 · Post by **andy2007** » 30 Sep 2008, 09:45

Better late than never, I suppose!

I notice that Royal Mail refused to admit the allegations were false:
Royal Mail spokesman Tom Prendergast said: "I can confirm the employee has been reinstated. However, Royal Mail does not comment on the details of individual cases."

That's a long way from apologising for what they put Kay through!

It's disgusting, that they can publicly claim that she was guilty of gross misconduct, for a year. Then just comfirm that she has her Job back!

The VERY least they could (and indeed SHOULD) have done, is make a public apology, and state very clearly, that she was completely innocent of any misconduct!

Well done Kay! Welcome back!

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 30 Sep 2008, 10:00

andy2007 wrote:Better late than never, I suppose!

I notice that Royal Mail refused to admit the allegations were false:
Royal Mail spokesman Tom Prendergast said: "I can confirm the employee has been reinstated. However, Royal Mail does not comment on the details of individual cases."

That's a long way from apologizing for what they put Kay through! It's disgusting, that they can publicly claim that she was guilty of gross misconduct, for a year. Then just confirm that she has her Job back! The VERY least they could (and indeed SHOULD) have done, is make a public apology, and state very clearly, that she was completely innocent of any misconduct!

Well done Kay! Welcome back!

a very american union bashing smear campaign - there was a selective news site that used similar tactics until a complaint was made to the CWU

siege mentality management and trench warfare tactics by a arrogant and underhand employer - there is a long line of cause and effect that goes right back to :lfo & :cfo and their senior managers

willful misrepresentation , unfair detriment for legitimate trade union activity and malicious prosecution , even the actual Harassment Act 97 i.e. to cause distress and alarm are very serious offenses - however RM has long regarded itself above the law and has hidden behind the OSA , however there is the public interest angle for whistleblowers .

Sheer hypocrisy and disgraceful instuitionalized bullying .

Post by **POSTMAN** » 30 Sep 2008, 15:00

Get in!!

3 out of 3,if they're looking in,and i know they are,well done.
Was wrong that you guys had to go through that,and Andy has it spot on.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 30 Sep 2008, 16:03

I always thought if you made a false allegation against someone under the bullying and harassment procedure that you in turn would be tried and if found guilty would suffer the same punishment for the original offence!. Or is this just more management bullsh*t that does not apply too them!. :cfo & :lfo

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 01 Oct 2008, 08:27

Ricky Bruch wrote:
andy2007 wrote: Royal Mail spokesman Tom Prendergast said: "I can confirm the employee has been reinstated. However, Royal Mail does not comment on the details of individual cases."
Sh should have demanded a full public appology, quite obvious that they were running scared

http://www.socialistworker.co.art.php?id=16072

The dictat from on very high is not to undermine local management - hence the bloody minded attitude , a culture of incompetence and instuitionalized stupidity

I'm sorry if this does not paint RM in a very good light but RM don't need much help in that regard .

The CWU have repeatedly claimed that the H&B process is abused for RM "moral " crusades , it's fundamentally corrupt , reps and activists are repeatedly targetted by unprofessional rogue managers to settle petty vendettas and play childish politicking .

There is a long line of cause and effect which goes right back to :lfo & :cfo , their board and senior managers .

Same thing happened in 2003 , apparently they are supposed to be controlling their managers but it involves more than passing dictats .

kay_thebigbird · Post by **kay_thebigbird** » 01 Oct 2008, 17:09

May I say that on a positive note, the outcome of these 3 cases is all because of the CWU & there legal team,so a massive THANKYOU to our union,they were brilliant, especially Dave Wilshire the Bristol branch secretary for the CWU,well done lads I owe you a big drink.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 01 Oct 2008, 17:25

kay_thebigbird wrote:May I say that on a positive note, the outcome of these 3 cases is all because of the CWU & there legal team,so a massive THANKYOU to our union,they were brilliant, especially Dave Wilshire the Bristol branch secretary for the CWU,well done lads I owe you a big drink.

Glad and really happy

for you kay when do you start back at work and have you got a nice big cheque from royalmail!. FOR ALL THE UNSAVOURY THINGS THEY PUT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY THROUGH!. THE HEROINE OF THE BATTLE OF BRISTOL!.

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 01 Oct 2008, 18:08

kay_thebigbird wrote:May I say that on a positive note, the outcome of these 3 cases is all because of the CWU & there legal team,so a massive THANKYOU to our union,they were brilliant, especially Dave Wilshire the Bristol branch secretary for the CWU,well done lads I owe you a big drink.

As Kay has rightly commented that on a positive note the outcome of these 3 cases is all because of the CWU & their legal team & the enormous help that will have undoubtedly been provided by the Bristol Branch Secretary.

However, on the negative side I presume that RM will have kept on record each individuals initial dismissal details and if this is the indeed the case the question has to be asked WHY!

Dynamo 2 · Post by **Dynamo 2** » 01 Oct 2008, 19:33

I would also like to also add a massive thanks to Dave Wilshire

and everyone at the Bristol branch of the CWU. The man deserves a medal! His dedication and tireless efforts to get us back to work were second to none! The solicitors at Simpson Millar have been fantastic as well, a big thank you to them too.

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 01 Oct 2008, 21:27

brothermagrew wrote:
kay_thebigbird wrote:May I say that on a positive note, the outcome of these 3 cases is all because of the CWU & there legal team,so a massive THANKYOU to our union,they were brilliant, especially Dave Wilshire the Bristol branch secretary for the CWU,well done lads I owe you a big drink.
As Kay has rightly commented that on a positive note the outcome of these 3 cases is all because of the CWU & their legal team & the enormous help that will have undoubtedly been provided by the Bristol Branch Secretary.

However, on the negative side I presume that RM will have kept on record each individuals initial dismissal details and if this is the indeed the case the question has to be asked WHY!

They used to work a similar thing with us in a vaguely / broadly similar industry only it was the blank file or you'd be threatened with things staying on file - this way if something similar happened again they'd assume you were automatically guilty by association

which goes against the principles of natural justice but it's RM

- it's also very hostile and vindictive but that's hardly a surprise

mailsort6 · Post by **mailsort6** » 02 Oct 2008, 03:58

Well done! the Bristol 3,the CWU and the lawyers

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 02 Oct 2008, 12:59

mailsort6 wrote:Well done! the Bristol 3,the CWU and the lawyers

Even on Postman Fluffy or Buntie ,( Sarah Kennedy's nickname with her fans

) ( somebody likened it to R2's Sarah Kennedy - she starts serious but she ends up talking about her cats

) they are saying it stinks ; even if they appeared to be very wary of upsetting RM at first

- also the occasional glib & trite apologists for Royal Fail have been silent on it .

As for painting RM in poor light

they don't need much help on that score

,what Dave Ward described as drunken sailors lurching from crisis to crisis swaying in the wind

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 02 Oct 2008, 16:35

I see that Kay (Bristol 1) doesn't only get a mention on CWU T.V. Episode 2 but actually makes an appearance via outside broadcast interview as well.

kay_thebigbird · Post by **kay_thebigbird** » 03 Oct 2008, 15:51

brothermagrew wrote:I see that Kay (Bristol 1) doesn't only get a mention on CWU T.V. Episode 2 but actually makes an appearance via outside broadcast interview as well.

Yes I know don't I sound Bristol,filmed that in London before it was all resolved.Still waiting for a start date back,it's taking forever.