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

[kidserge]

Eh? What is all this about someone offering her money? Think you should edit this post very carefully mate,--this lady could find herself in big trouble!

This person only wants to know the details behind the scam. How can she find herself in big trouble? We gave him the info that he needs like, how it happened, what happened, the signature samples, letters from Royal Mail confirming they compensate the person with missing money. He could be a scammer wanting more precise loophole or he could be the press. Either way, nobody helps us so this is the only route. Bearing in mind RM has caused her not to be able to find employment again.

[stokes11eg]

Hi everyone just an update on the news. I have went to the Employment Tribunal (ET) with the post delivery officer. We have presented all our evidences. The judge has decided that they cannot rule on our favour. She said that she is impressed by the overwhelming evidence that we have provided and she belives that the postlady did not steal nor did she misdelivered the special deliveries. However, Royal Mail has acted lawfully and with the correct procedures and they are right that they don't need evidence to accuse someone of stealing. This is an injustice and clearly demonstrate how hyprocitic our "democratic society" is. Her manager and appeal manager was there and the way they point their finger at us and laugh at us outside the court made my blood really boil. The Union doesn't even want to know about this lady (she has joined them for 8 years how much has that cost her?). This forum, although is called "Union Room" has not representatives that is willing to offer proper advise. She is a scapegoat and now she could not longer find another job because of "stealing" in her record. However, not all is lost. Someone has offered her substantial amount of money for all the information (the bundle pack produced for ET). i think we all know what that person wants to do with that piece of info. The scam is easy, get someone to hack into your account, order cash delivered to your door, get that person in your house and sign for it, get that person to leg it with the money (split with you of course), you claim you did not received it even though signature is present, Royal Mail refund the money back to you and repeat. Result: Postman/lady get fired because they get accused by their Internal Bureau. Scammers 1 Innocent people 0. I really did not want to sell the info, but we have exhausted all choices and at least she has now got a lump sum to retire on. My advise to you? Don't join the Union. They are useless. If IB questions you about missing items, say you can't remember a thing (even if you can) or get a lawyer there.

Eh? What is all this about someone offering her money? Think you should edit this post very carefully mate,--this lady could find herself in big trouble!

Firstly, if the Tribunal have ruled that in their opnion this lady did not steal, she should be given a written statement of the tribunal findings, and could present it to future employers, which I hope she does. You suggested in this post that you have sold information to someone you may suspect will use for less that legal purposes! Whilst understanding your very real frustrations, it is not really best practice to put this info up on a board.

[Tman]

So apart from waffling on about unconnected subjects like "undemocratic society" "useless union" etc (did you do that at the interviews too?) then yabbering on in a foreign language at an interview, you now allegedly sell this info to someone you believe to be a scammer, and then post about it on here?

Seems like the poor woman was damned from the start with you by her side.

[kidserge]

So apart from waffling on about unconnected subjects like "undemocratic society" "useless union" etc (did you do that at the interviews too?) then yabbering on in a foreign language at an interview, you now allegedly sell this info to someone you believe to be a scammer, and then post about it on here?

Seems like the poor woman was damned from the start with you by her side.

I did not "waffle" on about unconnected subjects like "undemocratic society" and "useless union" and we did not "yabber" in a foreign language. Unfortunately, no one else can speak foreign language at the ET and frankly, it is insulting to say that when someone is speaking a language besides English, then it is considered "yabbering". Yes, she is a foreign lady and I am her translator and I have acted professionally throughout the whole process. If I yabber foreign language, the judge would not be convinced that she is innocent. If I start yelling or being aggressive, the judge would have simply thrown the case out without further hearing. So if Union is not useless, then why are they not slightly interested in this case? The UNION, I repeat the UNION does not want to help and she is a member of the union. So this note about "useless union" is strongly connected to this subject contrary to what you say. Furthermore, "undemocratic society" is when you are blatantly punishing the innocents when clearly she has done nothing wrong and even the judge agrees. So to say "undemocratic society" is also connected to this subject. Yes, we sold the info and she can now retired with the money. At least some form of justice is served. She is definitely not poor (not anymore), and she is not damned by me, she is damned by the system which is hellbent on making her a scapegoat.

[stokes11eg]

So apart from waffling on about unconnected subjects like "undemocratic society" "useless union" etc (did you do that at the interviews too?) then yabbering on in a foreign language at an interview, you now allegedly sell this info to someone you believe to be a scammer, and then post about it on here?

Seems like the poor woman was damned from the start with you by her side.

I did not "waffle" on about unconnected subjects like "undemocratic society" and "useless union" and we did not "yabber" in a foreign language. Unfortunately, no one else can speak foreign language at the ET and frankly, it is insulting to say that when someone is speaking a language besides English, then it is considered "yabbering". Yes, she is a foreign lady and I am her translator and I have acted professionally throughout the whole process. If I yabber foreign language, the judge would not be convinced that she is innocent. If I start yelling or being aggressive, the judge would have simply thrown the case out without further hearing. So if Union is not useless, then why are they not slightly interested in this case? The UNION, I repeat the UNION does not want to help and she is a member of the union. So this note about "useless union" is strongly connected to this subject contrary to what you say. Furthermore, "undemocratic society" is when you are blatantly punishing the innocents when clearly she has done nothing wrong and even the judge agrees. So to say "undemocratic society" is also connected to this subject. Yes, we sold the info and she can now retired with the money. At least some form of justice is served. She is definitely not poor (not anymore), and she is not damned by me, she is damned by the system which is hellbent on making her a scapegoat.

Feel saddened that you feel no one here offered you good sound advice and support! Especially the bit about editing your recent post. Can you not see that with all the personal info you have given, yourself and the person you represent will be easily identified, and having stated you sold information you know could be used fraudalantly, both you and she could be in very serious trouble? Again, best edit your post!

[fishtank]

This forum, although is called "Union Room" has not representatives that is willing to offer proper advise.

If fishtank is right and your wrong and the OP follows your advice then they are wasting their time and they will loose the case as their focus is wrong and they will be trying to prove innocence when the ET wont be interested.

The judge has decided that they cannot rule on our favour. She said that she is impressed by the overwhelming evidence that we have provided and she belives that the postlady did not steal nor did she misdelivered the special deliveries. However, Royal Mail has acted lawfully and with the correct procedures and they are right that they don't need evidence to accuse someone of stealing.

Proper advice isn't always what you want to hear.....
You spent a great deal of time proving her innocence and well done for that but you completely ignored the advice given which was to forget about guilt and innocence and concentrate on procedures.
Royal Mail had already assumed her guilt by sacking her,it was up to you to prove that given the evidence they had at the time this was an unreasonable assumption to make....not that it was right or wrong.

[kidserge]

Well, as I said, I am not certain who that person is. Then again prove to the court that I have sold it. I can also say "i have kiled so and so....", does that mean I will be jailed for life in prison? "Innocent until proven guilty" must be the key to any democracy that we always preached about. But then this is clearly the "hyprocrisy of democracy". The society at the moment has a heavy blame culture. They even blame other people for their own thoughts and actions. Hell! I am not responsible for anyone's thoughts and actions. As for proving the that they have done wrong at that time? Let's see... the only evidence they have is the signatures. When asked which signature looks the same, the manager said, "I am not sure....it looks the same at that time but now I cannot identified it". The judge even shake her head at that time! Either way, the bottom line is, there is a miscarriage of justice here. This postlady has past her 50. No one will employ her ever again against a record like that. Yes, you can show the employer judge says so and so....do you think they will choose someone that has a clean slate or someone where the previous employer believes she steals money? And for goodness sake, she is not highly educated. part of the JD surely is not "You must professionally prove us wrong when you are being accused of stealing". If she can do that, then she does not need to work as a postlady. No disrespect guys but just saying the truth.

[kidserge]

May I also added on that note this post lady is not just "Guilty until proven innocence". It seems that she is "guilty until she proves her innocence, prove why RM is wrong and if you can prove RM is wrong, prove their wrong is unlawful". It's like me convicting you of murder, you have to prove you did not commit the murder, you have to prove why you think it is wrong for me to convict you of murder at the time when I only have circumstantial evidence at that time, you also have to prove why my conviction is unlawful. Can anyone feel my frustration here or not?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

"You must professional prove us wrong when you are being accused of stealing". If she can do that, then she does not need to work as a postlady. No disrespect guys but just saying the truth.

At an ET if you are trying to prove that she was not guilty of an act, they won't be interested. ALL an ET looks at is that with the information to hand was the outcome FAIR (not whether they were guilty or not of any offence). An ET will also check to see if all the correct procedures were followed and handled correctly. An ET could not be less concerned if she Beelzebub or the Angel Gabriel, it has no bearing on their remit.

In simple terms an ET is not concerned with guilt. It is only bothered about fairness and correct procedure.

[kidserge]

"You must professional prove us wrong when you are being accused of stealing". If she can do that, then she does not need to work as a postlady. No disrespect guys but just saying the truth.

At an ET if you are trying to prove that she was not guilty of an act, they won't be interested. ALL an ET looks at is that with the information to hand was the outcome FAIR (not whether they were guilty or not of any offence). An ET will also check to see if all the correct procedures were followed and handled correctly. An ET could not be less concerned if she Beelzebub or the Angel Gabriel, it has no bearing on their remit.

In simple terms an ET is not concerned with guilt. It is only bothered about fairness and correct procedure.

The correct procedure is to prove the signatures are not the same. RM said her signatures look the same. I employed a professional graphologist to prove the signature is different. That is the only so called evidence that they have at the time of dismissing her. And the appeal manager says something like "although the graphologist disagree, to my mind, the signature looks the same" and the judgement is based on that. Now instead of generalising and tell me to talk about fairness and correct procedure, tell me what more could I have done? If she is innocent and she has been fired then there is no fairness. If she has been fired based on unproven circumstantial evidence and also with evidence that she is not the one that signs it then that is the wrong procedure. No wonder there is a clash of opinion between the West and East in the international arena.....its crappy stuff like this that gets out of hand.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Can anyone feel my frustration here or not?

Yes - but as above and ET is not a criminal court its a Tribunal. There is no requirement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the crime, or indeed that she wasn't. All RM needed to do was prove that the decision to dismiss was "Fair" with the evidence presented and that they followed all the correct procedures. Because you tried to prove she did not do it her honesty has been vindicated by the Judge. But as you failed to prove to the judges belief that they did not follow procedure or that the decision was unfair then unfortunately she lost.

Is the decision morally right - No not by a long margin, but again they are not bothered by the rightness or wrongness of decision to dismiss, merely its fairness.

Was it fair - probably not but that was up to her, and whoever advised her, to prove - The judge decided that she had not proven the decision was unfair, and there in lies the crux of the matter. It appears you went for the not guilty approach rather than the not fair.

[kidserge]

Can anyone feel my frustration here or not?

Yes - but as above and ET is not a criminal court its a Tribunal. There is no requirement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the crime, or indeed that she wasn't. All RM needed to do was prove that the decision to dismiss was "Fair" with the evidence presented and that they followed all the correct procedures. Because you tried to prove she did not do it her honesty has been vindicated by the Judge. But as you failed to prove to the judges belief that they did not follow procedure or that the decision was unfair then unfortunately she lost.

Is the decision morally right - No not by a long margin, but again they are not bothered by the rightness or wrongness of decision to dismiss, merely its fairness.

Was it fair - probably not but that was up to her, and whoever advised her, to prove - The judge decided that she had not proven the decision was unfair, and there in lies the crux of the matter. It appears you went for the not guilty approach rather than the not fair.

Surely, I have proved that their decision at that time is wrong because their only evidence that they heavily based on is the damn signatures. RM has my graphologist report to prove that signature is different hand. RM's decision is that they are better at looking at signatures than the graphologist. In court, they can't tell the judge which signature looks the same. So this means this is not fair right?

[fishtank]

Kidserge...you have to understand the difference between a court of law and an employment tribunal.

A tribunal understands that when a business suspects a member of staff of theft they do not have the time and resources to build a case that would stand up in a court of law.
If every business had that legal obligation...there would be no businesses therefore the ET does not look at or for evidence in the same way that a court does....it looks at the procedures the company uses and whether they were applied fairly.
Your use of a graphologist was unfortunately pointless because an ET could not reasonably expect an employer to use one....therefore the managers opinion was considered to be fair.
The ET is not saying that the manager was right or wrong....just that the use of his opinion as a reasonable judge of whether it was her signature was fair because you cannot expect employers to call in experts.

[kidserge]

Kidserge...you have to understand the difference between a court of law and an employment tribunal.

A tribunal understands that when a business suspects a member of staff of theft they do not have the time and resources to build a case that would stand up in a court of law.
If every business had that legal obligation...there would be no businesses therefore the ET does not look at or for evidence in the same way that a court does....it looks at the procedures the company uses and whether they were applied fairly.
Your use of a graphologist was unfortunately pointless because an ET could not reasonably expect an employer to use one....therefore the managers opinion was considered to be fair.
The ET is not saying that the manager was right or wrong....just that the use of his opinion as a reasonable judge of whether it was her signature was fair because you cannot expect employers to call in experts.

RM don't need to call in the expert. I got one and they got the report in front of them. Why then did the manager cannot identified the same signatures in court when asked to do so? Am I going insane here or everyone seem to think that RM still done the right thing?

[fishtank]

RM don't need to call in the expert. I got one and they got the report in front of them.

After she was sacked.....
For the last time kidserge....the ET was judging whether the sacking was fair...at the time she was sacked based on the evidence RM had at the time they sacked her....NOT IF SHE ACTUALLY STOLE THE MONEY.