GROSS MISCONDUCT...THIS WILL AFFECT ANYONE READ THIS!

[kidserge]

Perhaps I was not clear. The PO delivered it to a person's door. The customer did not collect it in the post office

[clashcityrocker]

So how do they know the person who signed for it was the intended recipient?
It could have been the cleaner.

[meercat]

believe me, I have put down a lot of evidence and they keep rejecting it. These evidences are solid facts and not conjectures. What is "reasonable" and "not resonable" is down to interpretation. I really cannot believe this is happening....

Look into details of an 'unfair dismissal claim' at an employment tribunal. You can get free advice on this at your local Citizens Advice Bureau. At a tribunal you will have the opportunity to show your evidence before a court. This is a common course of action for people unfairly sacked and the court will award financial compensation and in such a s case you can expect to get your job back if successful.


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... G_10026692

[fmrPOSTIE]

OP - please stop using antiquated abreiviations such as Postal Officer, PO etc....Im confused there must be more to this case? Please state all facts unless you dont wish to do so.

[stokes11eg]

OP - please stop using antiquated abreiviations such as Postal Officer, PO etc....Im confused there must be more to this case? Please state all facts unless you dont wish to do so.

Think Op. stated English is not his first language, so be kind to him!

[kidserge]

Just to keep everyone updated. The ET has accepted the case and I have done what is necessary to prepare the bundle. It is in March 11. We are not even fighting for compensation anymore....this is the principal. If you deliver special deliveries to customer and they claimed they have not received it even though you got the signature, this means the postman/woman will be sacked. This is not right, there is no justice. I hope someone out here can still dare to come out and help me out here. In my country (obviously not UK), we need evidence before accusing someone of stealing. In fact, I got evidence to prove the postlady did not steal it. However in UK or at least in this scenario, they only need to assume you done it without evidence before they sack you. Can someone help me? I really need to know how the system work in UK.....What sort of assumptions do I have to make to ET to ensure that they can assume the postlady did not do it?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Just to keep everyone updated. The ET has accepted the case and I have done what is necessary to prepare the bundle. It is in March 11. We are not even fighting for compensation anymore....this is the principal. If you deliver special deliveries to customer and they claimed they have not received it even though you got the signature, this means the postman/woman will be sacked. This is not right, there is no justice. I hope someone out here can still dare to come out and help me out here. In my country (obviously not UK), we need evidence before accusing someone of stealing. In fact, I got evidence to prove the postlady did not steal it. However in UK or at least in this scenario, they only need to assume you done it without evidence before they sack you. Can someone help me? I really need to know how the system work in UK.....What sort of assumptions do I have to make to ET to ensure that they can assume the postlady did not do it?

As far as I understand it at an ET they won't be looking at the incident itself but whether the subsequent action of RM was both fair and reasonable. This would mean not proving that the Customer was at fault, but that RM sacking her was unreasonable and unfair, if they ignored evidence that proves innocence or failed to properly take that evidence into account then you may have a strong case.

Whatever you do don't base the whole of your ET case on proving that no theft took place as it will be a wasted effort.

[meercat]

As far as you can tell us, the sacking case as it stands is 'the customers word against the postwoman's word'? I would have thought it reasonable that the manager involved would side with the postwoman if there is no other evidence. I say this for 2 reasons: firstly the RM worker is already a trusted person with a CRB check and second with no other evidence guilt HAS TO BE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. If the court agrees that the manager didn't establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the the sacking will be found unfair. It is completely reasonable to assume the customer is lieing in order to keep the item and make a claim for compensation against Royal Mail.

You say there is a signature issue, if the manager refused to consider the evidence of an expert he has neglected to ensure all evidence is taken into account before making his sacking decision. The court will take a VERY dim view of this and may find the sacking unfair on these grounds alone.

It looks like the tribunal could find the sacking unfair as the manager has sided with the customer FOR NO GOOD REASON.
It may also find the sacking unfair as the manager has REFUSED to accept (signature) evidence offered by the employee.

There is another area where the sacking can be found unfair and that is if correct proceedure has not been used. The worker has the right to provide evidence (which has been refused) and must be given a chance to state their case at interview etc. A union rep would be VERY helpful with this side to ensure correct RM proceedure has been followed so your friend must get in touch with the office union representative at her depot.

[gb93]

The 1st bit in Capitals is so wrong.
Guilt does not have to be proven beyond reasonable belief.
Nothing has to be proven.
Just the whim and reasonable belief of a manager is enough to dismiss in RM procedure.

[fishtank]

guilt HAS TO BE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

No it doesn't.
Royal Mail policy is that "a reasonable ASSUMPTION of guilt" is enough for dismissal.
All that an Employment Tribunal is interested in is that Royal Mail applied it's business policy fairly....not that the policy itself is fair.
People need to get away from the idea that an ET sits in judgement of a company's policies....they don't.

[Broxi51]

So, basically, if I go to a door with a special and someone opens the door & signs for it on the PDA they can then
say they didnt receive it and I get dismissed
Every signature on the PDA looks the bl**dy same.

[fishtank]

So, basically, if I go to a door with a special and someone opens the door & signs for it on the PDA they can then
say they didnt receive it and I get dismissed
Every signature on the PDA looks the bl**dy same.

...but the question is why would they make a REASONABLE assumption that you stole it just because they say they never received it.
That's the bit of this story that's missing.
I've had customers say they didn't get stuff before including tickets by SD and my honesty has so far never been questioned...to my face at least.

[meercat]

Fishtank - Yes there is a subtle difference in the wording but don't both statements mean essentially the same thing?

Beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable assumption of guilt.

BOTH suggest there MUST be a reasonable assessment of the evidence and a reasonable conclusion made.

And your main assumption is COMPLETELY wrong - there is NO WAY an ET will support an employers employment policy if it is illegal so they DO and WILL judge the employers policies as well as ensure the correct 'contractual' procedure carried out.

'The Employment Tribunals are independent judicial bodies who determine disputes between employers and employees over employment rights.'

Notice that says employment rights NOT contractual agreements or employers policy.

[meercat]

All that an Employment Tribunal is interested in is that Royal Mail applied it's business policy fairly....

Utter rubbish and of no help whatsoever to this former RM employee.

[fishtank]

Fishtank - Yes there is a subtle difference in the wording but don't both statements mean essentially the same thing?

Beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable assumption of guilt.

No it doesn't...ask a lawyer.
While your at it ask him/her the difference between criminal law and civil law....and good advice and well.....