POSTMAN of 20 years was sacked after clocking up more than

[kitkatchunky]

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/ne ... ticle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Postman who clocked up more than 220 sick days sacked from Royal Mail
By hayley harp hayley.harp@thesentinel.co.uk

A POSTMAN of 20 years was sacked after clocking up more than 220 sick days.

Steven Hughes lost his job at Royal Mail's Crewe delivery office on the grounds of unsatisfactory attendance, in September last year.

The 46-year-old, from Crewe, had suffered a "run of bad luck" in the months leading up to his dismissal.

But he lost a claim for unfair dismissal during an employment tribunal held in Hanley yesterday.

It heard that Royal Mail has a standard of attendance all staff are expected to achieve.

A warning can be given to a worker who has four or more sickness absences, or 14 days off sick, within any 12-month period.

Second warnings can be issued if the employee has a further two absences, or a single absence of 10 days or more, in the 12 months following a stage one warning.

Employees reach the third and final stage if they have a further two absences, or a single absence of 10 days or more off sick, in the following six-month period.

Mr Hughes was given all three warnings in an eight-month period.

He reached stage one in January last year after taking a total of 23 days off for complaints including a chest infection and headaches. Two months later he had 15 days off after falling down steps and hurting his ribs.

His dismissal came after he took 72 days off, because of a fractured elbow he suffered playing football.

A medical report showed his absences were not because of any long-standing illness, and it said his attendance at work was likely to improve.

The tribunal heard Mr Hughes had previously been given warnings on 10 occasions prior to January last year.

Mr Hughes, who is now unemployed, said he thought being sacked was "a bit harsh" as his absences, particularly the last, weren't his fault.

Mr Hughes, of Timbrell Avenue, added: "I was a loyal employee.

"I had been given a long service award for 20 years just before I got the sack, and I returned to work early because they asked me to help out."

Mr Hughes's attendance records were only available from 1999 onwards.

From then until he was sacked, he had taken 223 days of sick, and almost 30 more as special leave and for industrial action.

Production control manager Michael Harvey, who made the decision to sack Mr Hughes, described his record as "one of the worst I have ever seen".

Appeals manager David Houle said: "The phrase 'if it's not one thing, it's another' comes to mind."

Tribunal judge Donald Thompson said: "'A bit harsh' isn't part of our lexicon, in the sense that we have got to deal with fairness and unfairness."

[maisymoo04]

Thats it pal all they do is use ye then tell ye to p*** off

[La Poste]

It's the same everywhere these days.
The Royal mail is no different in this respect.

[fishtank]

Mr Hughes's attendance records were only available from 1999 onwards.

From then until he was sacked, he had taken 223 days of sick

I have to say if i'm honest without any underlying medical condition that's a pretty abysmal sick record.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Mr Hughes's attendance records were only available from 1999 onwards.

From then until he was sacked, he had taken 223 days of sick

I have to say if i'm honest without any underlying medical condition that's a pretty abysmal sick record.

Exactly half though have come during his progression from No stages to dismissal 110 days total - of which nearly 3/4 were for one sick period after a football inury.

Do you think he lost track and stumbled over the stage 1 line. I mean 10 warnings in 20 years thats 1 every 2 years - perhaps he was a chancer that got caught out.

[Bonzo1962]

At our DO a few years ago one of our line managers and a collegue was off with stress around about the same time...........I'm not knocking people who has had stress ( my brother has had it so I know what it's like first hand in the family etc )............. funny how BOTH came back to work a week short of being off for 6 months ?????

[fishtank]

Mr Hughes's attendance records were only available from 1999 onwards.

From then until he was sacked, he had taken 223 days of sick

I have to say if i'm honest without any underlying medical condition that's a pretty abysmal sick record.

Exactly half though have come during his progression from No stages to dismissal 110 days total - of which nearly 3/4 were for one sick period after a football inury.

Do you think he lost track and stumbled over the stage 1 line. I mean 10 warnings in 20 years thats 1 every 2 years - perhaps he was a chancer that got caught out.

I don't know...i wouldn't want to judge him personally but it is a poor record...it would be interesting to see what his first 10 years were like.
I think RMs average sick is around 8 days a year now ...down from 12 in 2004 so unless he was just the most unlucky guy in the world it's hard to justify.

[PhilthyPhil]

I'm sure there are several guys in my office with similar or worse records. One guy has only been at work for about 10 weeks in the last two years!!

[baldrick]

Mr Hughes's attendance records were only available from 1999 onwards.

From then until he was sacked, he had taken 223 days of sick

I have to say if i'm honest without any underlying medical condition that's a pretty abysmal sick record.

It's about 20 days a year. While it might seem a lot, I'd think there are a number of managers who have more than that.

[brothermagrew]

The function of the tribunal as an industrial jury is to determine whether in the particular circumstances of a particular case, the decision to dismiss the employee fell within the band of reasonable responses which a reasonable employer might have adopted. If the dismissal falls within that band , dismissal is fair. If the dismissal falls outside the band, dismissal is unfair.

In both capability and conduct cases, in determining whether the dismissal is fair or unfair, a tribunal has to decide whether the relevant employer before deciding to dismiss had carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In considering the reasonableness of the investigation, the band of reasonable responses test is of considerable importance.

In a medical incapability case the primary purpose of such an investigation is to inform the employer as to the likelihood of the employee being able to meet and maintain acceptable standards within a reasonably short timeframe. If dismissal is being considered on capability grounds mainly because of the intermittent and unrelated short term absences there is still a need to form a view as to the likelihood of a satisfactory pattern of future attendances. However, in considering that issue in such cases 'reasonable investigation' usually will not involve the seeking of medical advice. This is because, usually, medical advice on miscellaneous short term absences will provide little assistance in determining whether there is a likelihood of satisfactory future attendance patterns. Accordingly, the dispensation from the need to consider a medical prognosis in intermittent absent cases is pragmatically based.

In such situations an employer's focus may properly shift to an examination to an examination of the nature, duration and pattern of past absences. But such a shift, in the focus of examination, is appropriate in such cases only because, in the context of intermittent absences, an examination of past events is usually the best available indicator of likely future attendance trends. In all medical capability cases (including cases where the main difficulty is caused by unrelated, intermittent, ill-health absences) there is a need to srike a balance between the employer's need for the work to be done and the employee's own interests (in keeping his/her job).

In any medical incapability situation (including a situation in which an employee is incapable of meeting attendance standards because of intermittent relatively minor absences), the main issue is whether or not the applicant is likely to be able to sustain satisfactory levels of attendance in the future. Although for the latter purpose it is necessary and appropriate to have regard to the absences which occurred in the past (because they may in many situations, provide an indicator of what is likely to happen in the future), those past events are being considered mainly for the purpose of coming to a conclusion as to what is likely to occur in the future.

[Stormproof]

Think I've had over 120 days in the past 7 years Some of those days I could've gone in to do light duties but management said No, if you can't do a delivery don't bother.They have changed that now though

[hantsman]

[quote="brothermagrew"]The function of the tribunal as an industrial jury is to determine whether in the particular circumstances of a particular case, the decision to dismiss the employee fell within the band of reasonable responses which a reasonable employer might have adopted. If the dismissal falls within that band , dismissal is fair. If the dismissal falls outside the band, dismissal is unfair.

In both capability and conduct cases, in determining whether the dismissal is fair or unfair, a tribunal has to decide whether the relevant employer before deciding to dismiss had carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In considering the reasonableness of the investigation, the band of reasonable responses test is of considerable importance.

In a medical incapability case the primary purpose of such an investigation is to inform the employer as to the likelihood of the employee being able to meet and maintain acceptable standards within a reasonably short timeframe. If dismissal is being considered on capability grounds mainly because of the intermittent and unrelated short term absences there is still a need to form a view as to the likelihood of a satisfactory pattern of future attendances. However, in considering that issue in such cases 'reasonable investigation' usually will not involve the seeking of medical advice. This is because, usually, medical advice on miscellaneous short term absences will provide little assistance in determining whether there is a likelihood of satisfactory future attendance patterns. Accordingly, the dispensation from the need to consider a medical prognosis in intermittent absent cases is pragmatically based.

In such situations an employer's focus may properly shift to an examination to an examination of the nature, duration and pattern of past absences. But such a shift, in the focus of examination, is appropriate in such cases only because, in the context of intermittent absences, an examination of past events is usually the best available indicator of likely future attendance trends. In all medical capability cases (including cases where the main difficulty is caused by unrelated, intermittent, ill-health absences) there is a need to srike a balance between the employer's need for the work to be done and the employee's own interests (in keeping his/her job).

In any medical incapability situation (including a situation in which an employee is incapable of meeting attendance standards because of intermittent relatively minor absences), the main issue is whether or not the applicant is likely to be able to sustain satisfactory levels of attendance in the future. Although for the latter purpose it is necessary and appropriate to have regard to the absences which occurred in the past (because they may in many situations, provide an indicator of what is likely to happen in the future), those past events are being considered mainly for the purpose of coming to a conclusion as to what is likely to occur in the future.[/quote



Are these your own words or is their a reference there to another person/author?

[brothermagrew]

Brother hantsman see - http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/2550_02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lounge Lizard]

"His dismissal came after he took 72 days off, because of a fractured elbow he suffered playing football." - that's the downfall of many an employee. He would propably still be employed if he had taken up a more leasurely pastime. Some people never learn.

[DGP1]

"His dismissal came after he took 72 days off, because of a fractured elbow he suffered playing football." - that's the downfall of many an employee. He would propably still be employed if he had taken up a more leasurely pastime. Some people never learn.

Sometimes even that can be dangerous