Burslem Depot Problems

[johno47]

RM dont care about the truth, if they want to get rid of you they will, and they will lie through their back teeth to do it, the truth and witnesses dont mean a thing, all so called independant Managers who are supposed to judge these cases get their decisions on what to do by senior Managers, RMs conduct code and procedure is a game to them, they play it all the way to the ITs if they want to, to get rid of you no matter what the cost, because even if you win your case they can still refuse to take you back, money means nothing to them if they get the result they want to.
RM had used to be a company that cared about its employees, office Managers knew your worth, you were treated with respect because you were all working together to make sure the public got their post, nothing else mattered, but since Leighton and Crozier came to the business, proffit is the be all and end all, for me to see long serving postmen treated like criminals is really sad, not just because they are my friends, but because it shows me the demise of a company and job i loved.

[Typing Monkey]

The story reminds me a little of an incident at my workplace - involving a member of the union (with 3 or 4 others) who bullied and harrassed a member of staff for no reason. A couple of them also had conduct warnings for bullying and harassment in a totally separate case. Seems some bullies just have it in their nature.

Anyway, I have to say the right decision was made to sack those people at Burslem Depot. Bullying should have no place in any Royal Mail building - and the union, instead of trying to hide bullying and harrassment issues, should take a good look at themselves and take B&H seriously. When their own members and reps are involved, their policy becomes rather ambiguous.

In an ideal world all complaints are genuine. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the case in the real world. Must be a couple of years ago in Stoke someone got dismissed for bullying. Only thing is the person who was supposedly bullied admitted to a few people (including me) that they were never bothered by the incidents they complained about - therefore they weren't bullied. They freely came out and said they just wanted to get this person into trouble, and hopefully sacked. Just goes to show you...

Burslem is in stoke isn't it. The tribunal in essence was about unfair sackings The claim being that RM used an unreliable witness whose evidence allegedly had inconsistencies

Where you called as a material witness

Sorry, should mention the case in question took place at Stoke MDEC where I work. No I wasn't, I wasn't familiar with the actual case itself. I just know that both prior to the complaint and since the dismissal the complainant has admitted to just wanting to get the other party sacked, and was never actually bothered by what they were alleged to have done. I also believe this point was raised with local management and not acted on as it seems they got the result they wanted as well. I also know that friends of the dismissed were regularly pulled over for a couple of months to do with confidentiality on the case. I never thought about it then but later it just struck me as paranoia as I sit near one and never heard the case discussed, in hindsight management made it look like they had something to hide.
Irony is this individual was, if I've been told right, nothing to do with the union. They were, however, openly critical of "unprofessional behaviour" / incompetence of managers, I'd heard them slating one for being "bone idle" as they put it. Someone did say though that the dismissed party was seen working at Stockport MDEC a few months later, but I don't know how true this is. This is exactly the sort of behaviour by both complainants and managers that undermines any complaints of bullying.

I know the case you refer to, it took place on nights. Never have I heard of such a farce. For a start the allegations were dealt with twice which is why the alleged bully was reinstated, sent to Stockport MDEC and has since left RM. From what I know there's so much more wrong with it. The power of Facebook!!!! Confidentiality goes out the window when someone leaves the business and then tells their friends what happened (or better, sends you copies of the BS complaint letter and complainant's statements).
Originally, the allegations were dealt with just after they happened with an informal resolution. It was believed the matter was over. However, a year later the same complaint was submitted which just happened to coincide with the change of people running our MDEC
Before and after making the complaint, like you've mentioned, he was quite happily telling people that he wasn't bothered by what went on and just wanted the other guy sacked. The first time round it's believed he only complained because his mate asked him too because the other guy was a witness in another bullying case against him!
Apparently the investigator passed the papers to the guy's line manager, who also wanted him sacked for the reasons you've given.
I also believe that when it went to conduct, our illustrious leader pulled his usual stunt and withheld most of the evidence which is grounds to throw the whole case out on appeal.
Which is why I'm surprised their reinstatement panned out the way it did, because they told me they went to ET, not once, but twice!

So I would say that RM managers ARE selective about which cases they deal with, and are selective about evidence and witnesses. If the latter undermines their case, it gets ignored, so cases go to ET and RM loses. The constant banging on we get about bullying is purely cosmetic, designed to make us think they're tackling it, but you try complaining about a manager.

[PLSludge]

The first time round it's believed he only complained because his mate asked him too because the other guy was a witness in another bullying case against him!

Another bullying case? Just how many is (was) he involved with?

Saying that, he is not the only one involved in more than one bullying case. In fact, in this separate case, two of the bullies had complaints against them upheld. Despite threatening another member of staff on the car park, and harassing him outside his home in out-of-work hours, they were not sacked. These were the same people who were also involved in the harassment of another member of staff.

[Oddball]

The first time round it's believed he only complained because his mate asked him too because the other guy was a witness in another bullying case against him!

Another bullying case? Just how many is (was) he involved with?

Allegedly, the first time the complaint was made it was because the complainant had been asked by his mate to make the complaint, and he probably wouldn't have said anything otherwise. There was certainly a delay between the incidents concerned and any complaint being made. His mate was "in trouble" for bullying someone else and one of the witnesses for that "incident" was the person he wanted the complaint made against. Like a few people, I still can't work out how they got away with taking conduct action twice for the same thing as last time I looked an informal warning was classed "1st line counselling" in the conduct code. It just shows how little our managers can be trusted as they don't know themselves!! Unless of course there was something else we're not aware of.

[Typing Monkey]

It just shows how little our managers can be trusted as they don't know themselves!!

Probably not given that we have a few people coming in stinking of booze. Having said that, someone was sent home for the evening when it was obvious they were under the influence.

[Oddball]

Not noticed. I'll keep an eye out for anyone wobbling while they walk or not making any sense when they talk. Hang on? Would the latter mean our managers have been in the pub before their shift?

[Lounge Lizard]

Were any of the Burslem problems caused by that Welsh ex rugby player when he was a manager there ?

[PLSludge]

Were any of the Burslem problems caused by that Welsh ex rugby player when he was a manager there ?

That whittles it down to the entire population of Wales.

[Oddball]

Has the outcome of this case been decided yet?

Is it going to be yet another embarrassing loss for Royal Mail in the tribunals because the managers who handled the conduct proceedings deliberately ignored evidence that didn't sit with the outcome they wanted? Likewise did the so-called "independent" appeals managers do their utmost to reinforce the original penalty? It's time the CWU highlighted how many cases RM lose in the tribunals because of this type of behaviour by managers. They should also campaign to make it a conduct issue for a manager/ appeals manager whose conduct cases end up as successful claims for unfair dismissal. Then we would have less of this vindictive behaviour towards people they simply don't like. :cfo

[Lounge Lizard]

Were any of the Burslem problems caused by that Welsh ex rugby player when he was a manager there ?

That whittles it down to the entire population of Wales.

No, I would have thought that not many Welsh ex rugby players are Royal Mail managers and even fewer have worked at Burslem.

[Happy Keyer]

So I would say that RM managers ARE selective about which cases they deal with, and are selective about evidence and witnesses. If the latter undermines their case, it gets ignored, so cases go to ET and RM loses. The constant banging on we get about bullying is purely cosmetic, designed to make us think they're tackling it, but you try complaining about a manager.

There have been several complaints/ grievances against one of the managers at the MDEC. Can you guess which one? "Come into my quiet corner" ring any bells? He's still there, no action been taken. That shows how serious RM are when they deal with bullying by managers, ie not interested.

They're definitely selective about what they deal with, and it's who rather than what. I keep hearing about people coming in the worse for drink but nothing ever being said or done. There's also the matter of someone being UA for 2 months but still keeping their job, I thought there was something in conduct about abandoned employment? Yet they sack someone for driving round the car park to change spaces. Total lack of consistency. Given how rubbish our managers are, when MEARS comes in the only option they should get is redundancy, not redeployment. Never come across such idle, apathetic and downright nepotistic people in all my life. :cfo

[PLSludge]

Yet they sack someone for driving round the car park to change spaces.

Must admit, I'm not familiar with that. Very harsh.

[Oddball]

Nights? Moving to a spot nearer the building entrance after lates have gone? A couple of people at least have been pulled up for it, though it's for "speeding" rather than moving their cars. Inconstistencies? Oh yeah! One sacked, another let off with a verbal warning. It's definitely who you are, not what you've done.

[Jngeek]

I can understand them pulling up people for speeding, but surely a warning would suffice. Our car park is so small you wouldn't be able to go that fast without reaching one of the ends!

Talking of car park incidents, the only one I'm aware of was when someone was forced to park in a separate bit of the car park because they had a history of threatening people with violence. They had a habit of asking where does Joe Bloggs live, and would harrass people for no reason, etc. They also skived all the time as well, but the rest of us were grateful when that happened. A real nasty, vile piece of work.

Not even their baldy defence lawyer could restore the reputation of the person concerned.

[PLSludge]

Talking of car park incidents, the only one I'm aware of was when someone was forced to park in a separate bit of the car park because they had a history of threatening people with violence. They had a habit of asking where does Joe Bloggs live, and would harrass people for no reason, etc. They also skived all the time as well, but the rest of us were grateful when that happened. A real nasty, vile piece of work.

Not even their baldy defence lawyer could restore the reputation of the person concerned.

Would I be right in thinking that you are referring to a woman? Yes, vile piece of work sounds about right. Her and her minions.