Granddad Ian Jennens wins compensation from Royal Mail

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8990772 ... 00_payout/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A POSTMAN who was sacked for poor attendance after 17 years working for Royal Mail has won £60,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal.

Ian Jennens, 59, was dismissed after he was given a warning about absences for two work related injuries.

Royal Mail rejected an appeal but an employment tribunal upheld a claim for unfair dismissal ruling neither of the two accidents at work should have counted towards his absence record.

The granddad, from Bitterne, Southampton, said: “I think it was pretty disgraceful. I was a full-time permanent postman working 40 hours a week."

[stokes11eg]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8990772 ... 00_payout/

A POSTMAN who was sacked for poor attendance after 17 years working for Royal Mail has won £60,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal.

Ian Jennens, 59, was dismissed after he was given a warning about absences for two work related injuries.

Royal Mail rejected an appeal but an employment tribunal upheld a claim for unfair dismissal ruling neither of the two accidents at work should have counted towards his absence record.

The granddad, from Bitterne, Southampton, said: “I think it was pretty disgraceful. I was a full-time permanent postman working 40 hours a week."

Good for him!

[youwot!!!!!]

" but an employment tribunal upheld a claim for unfair dismissal ruling neither of the two accidents at work should have counted towards his absence record".

this is the interesting bit.

good on him for taking our idiot employers all the way to a tribunal.

[DirtyHarry]

" but an employment tribunal upheld a claim for unfair dismissal ruling neither of the two accidents at work should have counted towards his absence record".

this is the interesting bit.

good on him for taking our idiot employers all the way to a tribunal.

I'll second that.

[fishtank]

Did he get his job back though?

[General Mannerheim]

60,000 quid payment I don't think he'd give a s**t about getting his job back.

[fishtank]

60,000 quid payment I don't think he'd give a s**t about getting his job back.

Probably not at 59..if he has a decent pension sorted out...but if he was 39 or 29?....with a mortgage and a family?
£60k is great...until it runs out.

[Lincox]

He would be a young grandad at 39 let alone 29 Fish.
But this case highlights the total ineptitude of Royal Mail and even more so it,s lawyers and advisers. It,s cost them £60k in compo and god knows what else in legal fees. No wonder the colleague shares are worthless. About as worthless as Royal Mail management.

[viking]

The Flood Gates are starting to open RM, so beware.

[not me]

Did he get his job back though?

when you file for tribunal you are asked what you want to be the result.
so i guess he didnt state he wanted his job back
£60K is 'only' 3-4 years wages really
so not as uch as it sounds but if he has pensions in place or has picked up another job/income source then it might be better than a return to RM

[pants123]

nice one,, just goes to show ROYAL MAIL will do any thing to get rid of good people,,,, welll done to this guy you set an example to all posties that royal mail cannot just bully and beat it's employees down...........

[Judgee]

[mark_e]

Good on him

[StuddStreet]

It seems unbelievable that Royal Mail's legal people would try to defend sick absence caused by accidents on duty to an employment judge.

What on earth did they think they were doing?

But in fact, they act on instruction from Royal Mail. So some senior person must have decided to defend the case. They should in my opinion be named and held accountable..though I'm pretty sure they won't be.

[fishtank]

It seems unbelievable that Royal Mail's legal people would try to defend sick absence caused by accidents on duty to an employment judge.

What on earth did they think they were doing?

But in fact, they act on instruction from Royal Mail. So some senior person must have decided to defend the case. They should in my opinion be named and held accountable..though I'm pretty sure they won't be.

It's a national policy...it's called the law of averages.
Lose one,win four and another five give up without a fight and even the one you lose still means another job gone.
It's win/win for the employer in the long run even with the odd £60k payout.