Three Southport postmen sacked for not wearing helmets

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/south ... -23984074/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Royal Mail has been labelled “draconian” after staff were dismissed for not following mandatory guidelines.

One Southport postman was yesterday among a number of posties across the region fighting an appeal to be reinstated.

Father-of-two David Smith, of Lytham Road, was among three people sacked from the Wight Moss Lane delivery office in May for not wearing a helmet. He had been delivering mail for 17 years .

Claude’s Patisserie in Churchtown sent off a petition in support of the stricken postie, whose future will be decided in the coming days.

And one Southport postman today launched a blistering attack on mail bosses, accusing them of sacking people “through the back door”.

He stormed: “This is not about health and safety, this is about penny pinching. It’s no coincidence that the people being targeted at Southport are full-time workers.

“The atmosphere at work at the moment is terrible. There’s serious tension between the postmen and the bosses over this. It wouldn’t surprise me if it got to the stage where there was a walkout.”

Regional union chair Paddy Magill admitted he was currently dealing with “a number of cases of this issue” and said that guidelines were being interpreted by some Royal Mail bosses in a “draconian” manner.

Local MP John Pugh has demanded to know why so many local postmen have been subjected to disciplinary treatment after seeing a “frighteningly long list”.

He said: “The only one at risk from not wearing a helmet is the postman himself but the disciplinary action is not even consistent. Behaviour that is tolerated in one area may not be in Southport."

A Royal Mail spokesman said: “We take the safety of employees very seriously which is why it is mandatory for all staff who use a bike to wear personal protective equipment, including cycle helmets."

[dvbuk55]

I work in the same area that Southport comes under and this has been an issue and it is difficult to defend on a health and safety issue - my office too has had concerns about this and everyone wears a helmet when leaving the office. However I know that Southport has approximately 150 cycles and 130 +/- are used on a daily basis so out of that number someone is going to be an easy target - strange to say I haven't heard of the sackings til now.

[NWpostie]

surely a Constructive H&S interview would be more appropriate, than a sacking, it is out of proportion to the offnce, if they are not reinstated, whats to stop postmen on these duties refusing to use Bikes, instead going out on foot, also voting for a strike, that would be certain, if I was there I would be going for a strike too, if they can get away with that, then the rest of the Office will be next guaranteed.

[redman]

I would like to see how are often they have been warned, to be honest its the CWU health and safety reps who have made such an issue of failure to wear cycle helmets in my area. If the manager has had little success enforcing helmets he may well have had to make this decision. The CWU take the high line where Health & Safety is concerned, demanding enforcement by managers but don't like it when it results in job losses. The manager's occasionally have to give the ultimate penalty.

I don't know about this case so really I am only being devils advocate.

[brothermagrew]

Facts are it's now June 2009 and Cycle Helmets were to be rolled out from January 2003 and recourse to the Conduct Code was not applicable until 1st October 2003.

Back then Royal Mail Service Delivery and the CWU recognised the need to improve cycle safety and agreed that the introduction of cycle helmets and high visibility garments were key to meeting those aims by ensuring that those delivering and collecting mail on cycles were firstly more visible to other road users and secondly better protected in the event of an accident.

With regards to compulsory wear:
Cycle helmets and high visibility garments will be provided to all those who undertake cycle deliveries. The helmet and high visiblity garments must be worn at all times whilst the employee is cycling. They need not be worn otherwise although Service Delivery would recommend that the helmet and garments are worn at all times whilst the employee is in control of the cycle. In cases where there is an objection to wearing safety headgear on the grounds of personal belief, which is already recognised under law (e.g. Sikhs and motor cycle helmets). Royal Mail will recommend that helmets are worn but will not insist.

Approach to non compliance:
The wearing of cycle helmets and high visibility garments will be mandatory as soon as they have been received and the appropriate information, training and instructions have been given (subject to the above paragraph). Issues of non compliance will be dealt with in accordance with the Compliance procedure Standards set out below.

The cycle helmet and high visibility garment must be worn at all times whilst the employee is cycling on public. They need not be worn at other times but it is recommended that the helmet and high visibility garments are worn at all times whilst the employee is in control of the cycle. Staff may if they wish wear the cycle helmets and high visibility garments to and from work. It is important that managers work in close consultation with CWU Area and local Representatives to encourage and ensure that high cycle safety standards are achieved through the wearing of cycle helmets and high visibility garments.

A sensitive and measured approach will be taken at all times by managers seeking to achieve the new safety standards set out herein. This will consist of counselling, persuasion, provision of clear information, instruction and training plus union involvement.


Conduct code action must be a managers last resort. Success of this safety initiative will depend on co-operation and support of the staff and their Representatives. Managers will seek to resolve any issues by understanding the wearer's situation. When staff are not complying with the wearing of cycle helmets and high visibility garments, the individual should be spoken to privately (by manager) and asked by (manager) why they are not conforming to the agreed safety standard. (Manager) should encourage the employee to comply and support the safety initiative. Again (manager) should ensure the employee understands the Royal Mail requirement to wear a cycle helmet and high visibility garment. (Manager) should ask if there are any personal circumstances or other relevant reason which may be influencing them not to comply with the safety standards.

(Manager) should consult the CWU Area Safety Representative in good time about the potential problem and afford the Representative the facility to speak in private with the employee. (Manager) should check records to see if the cycle helmet and high visibility garment has been supplied and also to check to see if any loss has been reported or replacement/renewal requested.

If the above has not resolved the issue and further investigation or enquiries are not required, seeking advice as necessary, advise the employee to comply with the cycle helmet and high visibility safety standard.

If non compliance continues, then as a very last resort and if all reasonable steps have been taken by management, inclding the involvement of the Area Safety or Area Delivery Representative again at this stage, prior to the formal application of the conduct code, then the use of the conduct code procedure may be considered.

The employee and his Representative must be informed of (manager's) intention, giving time to the individual to consider compliance. If the individual still refuses to comply, the agreed Conduct Code rules should then be applied progressively.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

a few more stories on this one - its gone national.

POSTMEN SACKED IN CYCLE HELMETS ROW http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/110 ... elmets-row" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



ROYAL Mail bosses were branded draconian yesterday after sacking three postmen in a week – for not wearing cycle helmets.

They were accused of adhering rigidly to ­guidelines to cut staff and slash costs ahead of ­privatisation.

Many others also face disciplinary action ­following the clampdown in Southport, Merseyside.

Several have launched an appeal to be re-instated. Father-of-two David Smith was dismissed after 17 years.

A ­colleague said last night: “This is not about health and safety it is about penny-pinching.”

Paddy Magill, regional chairman of the ­Communication Workers Union, said: “There is no doubt that the mandatory guidelines are being interpreted by some Royal Mail bosses in a draconian manner.”

Local Lib Dem MP John Pugh said: “The only one at risk for not wearing a helmet is the postman himself – so why is the Royal Mail threatening disciplinary action?” A Royal Mail spokesman said: “We take the safety of employees ­very seriously.”


Outrage as posties get the sack for not wearing cycling helmets http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21475202/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posties have blasted "draconian" bosses after three were sacked in one week from the same delivery office for not wearing cycling helmets.

Workers in Southport accuse Royal Mail of "penny pinching" and "sacking through the back door".

One said: "This is not about health and safety. All the people targeted are full-time workers."

A Royal Mail spokesman said: "It is mandatory for all staff who use a bike to wear protective equipment, including cycling helmets."

[dvbuk55]

"Local Lib Dem MP John Pugh said: “The only one at risk for not wearing a helmet is the postman himself – so why is the Royal Mail threatening disciplinary action?”"

This is not the same Pugh who presented Long John Silver with the Black Spot is it?

What a stupid banal statement.

[DGP1]

"Local Lib Dem MP John Pugh said: “The only one at risk for not wearing a helmet is the postman himself – so why is the Royal Mail threatening disciplinary action?”"

This is not the same Pugh who presented Long John Silver with the Black Spot is it?

What a stupid banal statement.

Didn't him and his twin brother work for the fire brigade once

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Whilst I have every sympathy with the way they have been sacked they can't, or perhaps I should say shouldn't have anything to complain about.

Since Oct 2003 and in agreement with the Union there has been a set process for handling people who refuse to wear cycle helmets on delivery. It involves a steady progression through informal chats/warnings by management and senior CWU H&S Reps, but eventually it can be a conduct issue.

Now if RM have failed in any part of this process then the 3 posties should be reinstated immediately. If however they have not failed to follow the process then the posties should have had plenty of warnings and would have known what the final outcome could have been.

Also ultimately it is down to the Posties themselves. If you don't want to wear a cycle helmet then don't use the cycle and do your deliveries on foot. If you do use cycles then that must be with the full understanding and knowledge that there are contractural regulations regarding H&S and these must be applied fairly and in full.

RM and the CWU do some silly things which we all disagree with but that does not mean we can ignore the ones we disagree with and only implement the ones we do, down that path lies anarchy.

To reiterate it is a personal choice - If you want to use a RM cycle then follow the regulations and wear the PPE.

If you don't want to follow the regulations or wear the PPE then your only choice is not to use the cycle. Fairly simple choice IMHO.

[brothermagrew]

"Local Lib Dem MP John Pugh said: “The only one at risk for not wearing a helmet is the postman himself – so why is the Royal Mail threatening disciplinary action?”"

This is not the same Pugh who presented Long John Silver with the Black Spot is it?

What a stupid banal statement.

Didn't him and his twin brother work for the fire brigade once

Sure did in Trumpton.

Pugh & Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble & Grubb.

[dvbuk55]

[DGP1]

TBH I can't think of why someone wouldn't wear their helmet whilst on a bicycle, yes you may look like an idiot but surely it's better to look stupid than to be dead

[DGP1]

"Local Lib Dem MP John Pugh said: “The only one at risk for not wearing a helmet is the postman himself – so why is the Royal Mail threatening disciplinary action?”"

This is not the same Pugh who presented Long John Silver with the Black Spot is it?

What a stupid banal statement.

Didn't him and his twin brother work for the fire brigade once

Sure did in Trumpton.

Pugh & Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble & Grubb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P5wcCuNZbY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[NWpostie]

Whilst I have every sympathy with the way they have been sacked they can't, or perhaps I should say shouldn't have anything to complain about.

Since Oct 2003 and in agreement with the Union there has been a set process for handling people who refuse to wear cycle helmets on delivery. It involves a steady progression through informal chats/warnings by management and senior CWU H&S Reps, but eventually it can be a conduct issue.

Now if RM have failed in any part of this process then the 3 posties should be reinstated immediately. If however they have not failed to follow the process then the posties should have had plenty of warnings and would have known what the final outcome could have been.

Also ultimately it is down to the Posties themselves. If you don't want to wear a cycle helmet then don't use the cycle and do your deliveries on foot. If you do use cycles then that must be with the full understanding and knowledge that there are contractural regulations regarding H&S and these must be applied fairly and in full.

RM and the CWU do some silly things which we all disagree with but that does not mean we can ignore the ones we disagree with and only implement the ones we do, down that path lies anarchy.

To reiterate it is a personal choice - If you want to use a RM cycle then follow the regulations and wear the PPE.

If you don't want to follow the regulations or wear the PPE then your only choice is not to use the cycle. Fairly simple choice IMHO.

a fair point one I agree with, to date we haven't heard the full story from the local rep on this forum yet ditto for a manager that does frequent this forum.

If it was done to reduce full timers then the Management involved deserve the high jump, if however they were warned repeatly then dismissal is and should be the last resort, moving to another duty not involving bikes would have been better than to put somebody on the dole.

[lover]

just type in cycle helmet safty into any web search and near the top you will find a site dedicated to FACTS about cycle helmet use.
like you being twice as likely to be in an accident if you wear one.for several reasons.but mainly riders take more risks and drivers seeing a cyclist with a helmet on overtake much closer than if you didnt when they give you a wide birth.in australia its complosry to wear one.it cut the serious head injuries in half.sounds good except it cut the amount of people cycling by over half.net gain.,nothing.if anything their are more accidents per head and those that no longer cycle are getting fatter and costing the health service more in treatment.they are trying to repeal the law.
it is also in this weather more dangerous for your health,seeing as their mostly made of polystyrene which produces its own heat.

they are also only design for the very basic of accidents.if you fall off your own bike they must be able to withstand the impact.
they are not designed for accidnts involving anything else.BASICLY THEIR FOR LITTLE KIDS WHO HAVENT YET WORKED OUT TO PUT THEIR HANDS DOWN FIRST WHEN THEY FALL OFF.

you will always get some people who claim,wow the helmet saved my life but it aint true.

they have increased the dangers to your health and safty not lessened them.
how many of us wear them and have nearly had their head ripped off by a tree branch getting caught in the holes,or smashing someones porch light as you walk up to the door.

they are not designed to be worn for 3.5 hours or more .i would fight dismissal on FACTS.

oh and lets not forget it was the union that bitched and moaned to get helmets provided and they they will bitch and moan that royal mail took it to its natural conclusion.royal mail used to say you can wear your own if you wish.but if its supplied then its complusory...

wow rant over...i fooking hate the helmets but i wear it.because im forced to.their are to many idiots in royal mail and the union trying to score points over each other.they really dont care about you only the money you make them