Hungover postie awarded £1,570

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Hungo ... 4736069.jp

Published Date: 27 November 2008

A POSTMAN sacked after taking a Saturday off because he had a hangover has been awarded compensation of £1,570 for unfair dismissal.

John McMeikan, from Greenock, had already been warned about his attendance at Inverclyde delivery office, and a tribunal limited his award as he was found to be 75 per cent to blame.

[dvbuk55]

Then who was to blame for the other 25% of the hangover?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Sacked postie wins payout
http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/articles/1/31250
A GREENOCK postman who won compensation for unfair dismissal after taking a day off because of a hangover has welcomed the decision.

John McMeikan today told the Tele he was happy with the outcome of the tribunal and was moving on with his life.

He said: “I am happy with the decision and felt I got a fair hearing. The tribunal reached the correct decision.

“I hope the decision opens the Royal Mail’s eyes to treat people fairly. People do have problems and they have got to help them with that. I’m studying and working at the weekends somewhere else now so I am happy with things.”

The tribunal heard he started as a postman, based at Inverclyde delivery office, in August 2005.

Mr McMeikan was given two warnings and delivery office manager Kevin Barclay noted there were a number of one-day absences and several unauthorised absences, each of which occurred on Saturdays or Mondays.

At the time of the first warning, the tribunal heard he said several close members of his family and friends had died following illnesses.

It was also said for his second warning, in December 2006, the postman explained he lived on his own and ‘enjoyed his social life maybe to the extreme in some cases’.

Mr McMeikan was dismissed last November after two more absences on 3 May and on 21 July last year, but the tribunal found it unfair, noting Mr Barclay appeared to disregard the fact that, by the time the interview took place on 26 October last year, there had been no further absences. The tribunal said insufficient consideration had been given to the fact his attendance record had undoubtedly improved and accepted the facts did not fit with Mr Barclay’s analysis.

However, Mr McMeikan, whose address was given as Lynedoch Court, Greenock, had failed to alert Royal Mail he had an alcohol-related problem and was found to be 75 per cent to blame. His compensation was reduced to £1,570.

A Royal Mail spokeswoman said: “We are disappointed with the employment tribunal decision and the robust attendance procedures were strictly followed in this case.”

[lover]

g8 ill go out get p*ssed every friday and take saturday off
as long as i tell um i like getting drunk.then its 100 percent royal mails fault..cockoo
victory for royal mail here i think.
if he had stayed he would have cost them an awful lot more.

[brothermagrew]

Then who was to blame for the other 25% of the hangover?

Royal Mail probably drove the poor sod to drink in the first place (times are a stressful), plus the fact Mr Barclay appeared to disregard the fact that, by the time the interview took place on 26 October last year, there had been no further absences. The tribunal said insufficient consideration had been given to the fact his attendance record had undoubtedly improved and accepted the facts did not fit with Mr Barclay’s analysis.

[k979aaa]

The whole emphasis should be on whether he could meet royalmail standard's in future and not his past we all do not have exceptional attendence record's as some claim to have!.

[Lounge Lizard]

Then who was to blame for the other 25% of the hangover?

Nothing wrong with the first nine pints It was the last three that were to blame

[fmrPOSTIE]

glad he got sacked, 1 less lazy halfwit at Royal Mail.

[norbert]

Then who was to blame for the other 25% of the hangover?

Royal Mail probably drove the poor sod to drink in the first place (times are a stressful), plus the fact Mr Barclay appeared to disregard the fact that, by the time the interview took place on 26 October last year, there had been no further absences. The tribunal said insufficient consideration had been given to the fact his attendance record had undoubtedly improved and accepted the facts did not fit with Mr Barclay’s analysis.

It sounds if the DUM has laid it on too thick , no doubt to impress & the usual playground stuff - " they are all lazy , taking the p*** bit '- there was a RM mission statement " Anyone with Addiction Issues will be given help " , then the other thing that saved his bacon was RMAP seeming to be too punitive and no consideration to improvement - so the Tribunal would be concerned that RM didn't actually follow their own procedure .

Don't get me wrong , I'm not a soft touch - I've seen the p***heads in another service ( a fair few were reps ! ) and they have led some very charmed lives and I can tell some stories - everyone knows who the p***heads are in RM - I can sympathise with some of the reps who have to represent him - problem is - going by the comments in the paper - everyone gets tarred with the same brush

In the former service - alcoholism was treated as an illness - However if you as much as missed one meeting or appointment etc - everything reverted back to the original punishment - he didn't come clean in this RM case - so his award was reduced

I agree with people saying RM will eventually see it as worth £1,570 to get rid of him

[lover]

The whole emphasis should be on whether he could meet royalmail standard's in future and not his past we all do not have exceptional attendence record's as some claim to have!.

and some of us do

[k979aaa]

The whole emphasis should be on whether he could meet royalmail standard's in future and not his past we all do not have exceptional attendence record's as some claim to have!.

and some of us do

Pride alway's come's before a fall.

[norbert]

If i was his DIM i would of offered him the choice of sacking OR A days holiday taken from him as i would do in many cases at RM! (If you have to pay someone else to do the duty you may as well try to get the money back and you would not need to train someone else to do his / her job after you sacked em QUIDS IN!) when the holiday is gone i would then offer them the chance to make the hours up that WEEK! This would show any IT that you have tried to work with the employee to manage and help their "Sickness" and the sacking was a last resort because these f*ckers leave paperwork all over the place because the evidence was there on paper for each meeting you could not lose! The best thing for RM is, it would bring sickness down overnight because people would not add on a few days to "make it look right" cause they would have to make it up! The employee would keep their job instead of losing it for being stupid! And RM the employer would not have to go to the expence of sacking a tw*t cause if they failed all of that offerd by a good employer they would deserve it and NO ONE WOULD TOUCH IT! This is of course only short term sickness! NOT long term sickness! still what do i know?

I've seen it done - someone was " disappearing " every Sunday nightshift at 0130 - eventually he got caught so it was a long chat and he'd to lose AL - maybe that was too old school RM , too lenient ? , however it did keep the paperwork down , in later years it would be probation or serious warning for such a offence - most places outside RM you'd get the sack - nowadays it would be the sack for fraud , intentional delay or willful delay

[norbert]

If i was his DIM i would of offered him the choice of sacking OR A days holiday taken from him as i would do in many cases at RM! (If you have to pay someone else to do the duty you may as well try to get the money back and you would not need to train someone else to do his / her job after you sacked em QUIDS IN!) when the holiday is gone i would then offer them the chance to make the hours up that WEEK! This would show any IT that you have tried to work with the employee to manage and help their "Sickness" and the sacking was a last resort because these f*ckers leave paperwork all over the place because the evidence was there on paper for each meeting you could not lose! The best thing for RM is, it would bring sickness down overnight because people would not add on a few days to "make it look right" cause they would have to make it up! The employee would keep their job instead of losing it for being stupid! And RM the employer would not have to go to the expence of sacking a tw*t cause if they failed all of that offerd by a good employer they would deserve it and NO ONE WOULD TOUCH IT! This is of course only short term sickness! NOT long term sickness! still what do i know?

I've seen it done - someone was " disappearing " every Sunday nightshift at 0130 - eventually he got caught so it was a long chat and he'd to lose AL - maybe that was too old school RM , too lenient ? , however it did keep the paperwork down , in later years it would be probation or serious warning for such a offence - most places outside RM you'd get the sack - nowadays it would be the sack for fraud , intentional delay or willful delay

You said it yourself! " disappearing "! Was not the thread about someone taking time off work NOT "disappearing " from a shift they had already started to do? Because if it was, that is something else again! First they are leaving their mates to do the work they TURNED up and signed in that day to do! And second is if a fire or something happened those same workers would feel the need to go and find that work mate in the inferno. And by far the worst is it would put TRUE innocents the fire brigades lives at risk in that event (Because they would have NO way of knowing the bloke was a w****r!) unlike his own workmates and (I) feel thats an altogether different thing from taking a sly day off cause those f***ers can cost lives not just a stupid day off that the firm could get back the cost of and stop wasting their own time and everyone elses!

sorry what I was driving at was the time when some managers were either given discretion or could use it rather than all this regimented stuff from on high - bit of a tangent - I agree with the bit about the fire brigade or his workmates having to find someone if he was unaccounted for if a roll call was called

Let's just say the culture wasn't much good on those shifts to say the least - our group knew what was going on for weeks , we'd have had to shop him in a emergency situation - later on the same guy got knocked off his bike in a car park and had a lot of time off - nowadays I'd imagine he'd have problems with RM - but beforehand if he didn't want to do those shifts , he should have came off them

[norbert]

[quote="linkinpark"]OKEE DOK

Ironically that manager who had some initiative was threatened with being put back in uniform as his heart apparently wasn't in the job - he actually used to run sections for the guy who threatened him and they always cleared and ran like clockwork -it says everything that's wrong with RM

They brought a sacking troubleshooting manager in , the troubleshooter then got a promotion and took the best managers with him , including the manager whose heart supposedly wasn't in the job