Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 07 Apr 2009, 14:11

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news ... ?ID=406141" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A SACKED postman has been reinstated and awarded nearly £22,000 compensation after winning his claim for unfair dismissal.

But Kevin Linwood, who was fired by Royal Mail after he followed his doctor's advice and stayed off work for a day, is furious at his union after it refused to back him during the case.

The 47-year-old, of Field Crescent, Royston, was forced to get his own solicitor for the employment tribunal, costing £8,750, after the decision by the Communication Workers Union (CWU).

His problems started in August 2007, when he started coughing up blood and was fast-tracked for an endoscopy at Addenbrooke's Hospital.

On his doctor's guidance he took the following day, a Saturday, off work as well, and returned to work on the Monday. The tests results showed he was not suffering from a serious illness.

But that October the father-of-three was told his absence after the test had moved him onto the final stage of Royal Mail's disciplinary procedure, and he was dismissed.

The firm said Mr Linwood had taken 100 days of absence since he started work in 2002.

Mr Linwood decided to fight the decision and was backed by his union branch, which pointed out that 45 of the 100 days were the result of accidents at work, and that another day had been following a family funeral in 2006.

This was the first funeral Mr Linwood had attended since his two young children died in a car crash in 1990, and the event left him emotionally disturbed.

An employment tribunal was arranged, but a month beforehand the CWU decided not to represent its member at the case, after its legal team decided there was not a 50 per cent chance of success.

Steve Butts, the CWU's area representative, appeared as a witness for Mr Linwood.

At the tribunal in Bury St Edmunds, employment judge Patrick Milmo QC found Royal Mail had been wrong to say there were "no mitigating factors" in Mr Linwood's absences and that it was "unfair" to include days off caused by accidents at work.

Judge Milmo awarded Mr Linwood £21,795 and ordered Royal Mail to reinstate Mr Linwood, after 14 months off.

He now delivers mail in Royston and Arrington, but said: "I paid my money to the union for years and then the one time I needed them, they didn't support me."

Mr Butts said a union could not guarantee it would pursue every case.

He said the decision not to support Mr Linwood was "unfortunate", adding the branch always believed the case had "strong merits" and paid for his own release from work for the tribunal.

johnsouthwales · Post by **johnsouthwales** » 07 Apr 2009, 16:50

i'm glad mr linwood won the case. very disappointed in cwu (shakes head). makes u wonder innit. they seriously under estimated here. cwu legal team should know to start with its a 51% win/49% not a 50-50.

everybody who has had a warning for an accident at work will have to have them all removed from their file then.. it's there in black and white, if a QC states that it is unfair to have penalties against a person which resulted from accidents, the QC is only acting in law in making his decision, then in effect, a warning is illegal

Post by **dvbuk55** » 07 Apr 2009, 16:59

johnsouthwales wrote:i'm glad mr linwood won the case. very disappointed in cwu (shakes head). makes u wonder innit. they seriously under estimated here. cwu legal team should know to start with its a 51% win/49% not a 50-50

It makes you wonder what the union think the money is for - fighting for the union member - or other more important things

johnsouthwales · Post by **johnsouthwales** » 07 Apr 2009, 17:03

accidents have various circumstances, whether a person is accident prone through to an accident from wearing the wrong footwear, or just simple foolhardyness.. any accidents that were caused by royalmails own working practices must be wiped off records. that is only logic. why take a rap for their doings?

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 07 Apr 2009, 18:38

dvbuk55 wrote:
johnsouthwales wrote:i'm glad mr linwood won the case. very disappointed in cwu (shakes head). makes u wonder innit. they seriously under estimated here. cwu legal team should know to start with its a 51% win/49% not a 50-50
It makes you wonder what the union think the money is for - fighting for the union member - or other more important things

mitzi · Post by **mitzi** » 07 Apr 2009, 19:56

dvbuk55 wrote:
johnsouthwales wrote:i'm glad mr linwood won the case. very disappointed in cwu (shakes head). makes u wonder innit. they seriously under estimated here. cwu legal team should know to start with its a 51% win/49% not a 50-50
It makes you wonder what the union think the money is for - fighting for the union member - or other more important things

its always a surprise how the cwu hierarchy choose to spend our money. maybe its me that has it wrong but i thought it was for industrial representation.

cedric · Post by **cedric** » 07 Apr 2009, 20:05

mitzi wrote:
dvbuk55 wrote:
johnsouthwales wrote:i'm glad mr linwood won the case. very disappointed in cwu (shakes head). makes u wonder innit. they seriously under estimated here. cwu legal team should know to start with its a 51% win/49% not a 50-50
It makes you wonder what the union think the money is for - fighting for the union member - or other more important things
its always a surprise how the cwu hierarchy choose to spend our money. maybe its me that has it wrong but i thought it was for industrial representation.

Maybe if less money was squandered on pursuing personal agends like the education bandwagon, LGBT, environmental issues and all the other assorted quango's then we could represent the members interests as most members believe they pay subs for.

Puppetmaster · Post by **Puppetmaster** » 07 Apr 2009, 20:08

Almost similar letter in the Voice recently from a shop steward who pointed out many cases the national CWU did not back ,but these people found NO WIN no fee
Solicitors and won their cases ,,I feel for this guy and what he must live with.

Just Hope the Manager who sacked him can live with his Consioncous,or is never Judged by a Higher Authourity on his actions in life- seems to me evnetualy this Manager who sacked him ,could enjoy his just rewards.

hope it works out well for this Postie with suppourt from every one.

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 07 Apr 2009, 20:15

For the CWU brother

For Employment Judge

CWU Legal Team for non representation of fee paying CWU trade union member

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 07 Apr 2009, 23:12

disgruntledpostie1 wrote:
dvbuk55 wrote:
johnsouthwales wrote:i'm glad mr linwood won the case. very disappointed in cwu (shakes head). makes u wonder innit. they seriously under estimated here. cwu legal team should know to start with its a 51% win/49% not a 50-50
It makes you wonder what the union think the money is for - fighting for the union member - or other more important things

AFAIK the pie jokes about Wigan actually go back to the hated Private Mining Company days where Leigh stayed out on strike but the Wiganers had to go back to work and eat humble pie apparently . I do think that the CWU at the top are out of touch and used to relatively benign management .

The reality is that RM operate at the very limit of employment law at the best of times , and the kindest thing you can say is that a lot of the practices are a a bit sharp .

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 09 Apr 2009, 15:07

I've seen similar- ish situations in another service , RM can afford to throw money at cases to protect their public image and sometimes defend the indefensible , the Union can't and RM know that i.e . they can play trench warfare & Siege Mentality Management , i.e. deliberately drag cases out to weaken the Union's financial position .

In 2003 re UIA , RM were desperate to find anything to suggest that various branches were actually encouraging UIA not repudiating it as they have to do due to successive Employment Acts with a view to getting the union's assets sequestrated .

There was a situation at Bombardier Shorts in NI where one of their Senior Managers had 477 Tribunal Cases against him , the AEUU couldn't afford to fund all of them and some applicants had to go through their MP's . That Senior manager was headhunted by RM and became a RM Personnel Director .

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 09 Apr 2009, 15:50

That Senior manager was headhunted by RM and became a RM Personnel Director .

He's since been promoted

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 09 Apr 2009, 16:29

disgruntledpostie1 wrote:
That Senior manager was headhunted by RM and became a RM Personnel Director .
He's since been promoted

this is it - we have to look at who the real bad guys are

Post by **royalmailrules** » 09 Apr 2009, 21:18

I have noticed that some members seem to know each other. I thought we had to remain anonymous

sorry new on here. very glad Mr Linwood got his job back.

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 09 Apr 2009, 21:24

royalmailrules wrote:I have noticed that some members seem to know each other. I thought we had to remain anonymous

sorry new on here. very glad Mr Linwood got his job back.

The reason why we like be be annoymous is RM can (and has) used postings on this site to discipline people, it's better to be safe than sorry.

ROYALMAILCHAT

Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

Re: Sacked postie wins £22k and job back