Sacked for wilful delay. Tribunal next week - urgent advice

[luddite]

Good luck mate, they like to quote procedure so throw it back in their faces!!!
The union aren't involved......totally gobsmacked!!
Stunned!

[hantsman]

its 75k costs if you lose and the union have to pay thats why you have to have a solid case......apparently.

Where on earth do you get that figure? Complete rubbish

[silly suffolk]

its 75k costs if you lose and the union have to pay thats why you have to have a solid case......apparently.

Where on earth do you get that figure? Complete rubbish

it'll be more than that when the old etonians get their way.

[meercat]

4. My biggest mistake was that I did not call anyone on my mobile.

No. That's not right, and I don't think you have a good grasp of the rules around cutting off/bringing mail back.

Essentially that rule is that if you think you are unable to complete you must inform a manager BEFORE you leave the office. Simple as that. If you didn't do that then that was your biggest mistake, because if you do tell them you can safely bring mail back. That would only be the case ofcourse if your manager said 'OK fine, take it all out, see what you do then bring the rest back.' - or if he/she said something else like 'OK i understand you might not get it all done' but fails to give you further instructions and walks off. On the other hand if your manager said 'Take what you can deliver and leave the rest' then whatever you then take out you have agreed to deliver - you have agreed you have estimated the workload and wil have time to deliver it and if you then don't deliver it because you simply 'run out of time' you have wilfully delayed the mail. Essentially you have delayed the mail by failing to meet your own promise of delivering it all.

I hope that's clear and it's how I understand it so anyone with a different view please let us know.

The quote you used-

'If an individual is prevented from completing their delivery for any reason, it is essential that this is reported
immediately either by returning to the office or by telephone (telephone costs will be refunded).'

is totally unrelated to 'cutting off' and is foremost to do with unforeseeen occurances like accidents, delays from a flood or road closure for example, or a bike malfunction etc and has no central bearing in this case. So the fact you told your manager when you returned is fine, you met this general proceedure, but it is not really relevant. You have been sacked not because you did or didn't follow this proceedure about informing a manager on return or by phone before return, it is the proceedure about informing a manager before you leave the office that you need to read and apparently didn't follow.

If it were me I would fight this on a few grounds. Remember you have basically been sacked for failing to follow proceedure not for wilful delay no matter what RM say as you did not act in a wilful way to delay the mail, it was not actually delayed, and you did your best to deliver it and informed a manager at the first opportunity!

Ok so firstly you didn't know or understand the correct proceedure so couldn't be expected to follow it. This is what you say has happened because like you I'm also PT and also don't know whats going on because all the meeting are done before I get in. You really didn't know what to do. You didn't inform them before you left that you might bring mail back because you simply didn't know that was what you were meant to do. And from what you have written you clearly still don't know that's what you were meant to do.

Second, you say you had an injury. If this slowed you down unexpectedly, ie if you thought you could deliver on time but couldn't because your injury got worse during the delivery, or made you slower than you thought you would be then this is an unforseen occurance and you followed correct proceedure by informing manager on return. I'm not quite sure from what you wrote if that's what happened but it sounds like it. You can't be legitimately sacked for have an injury on duty and failing to complete your workload as a result. It's absurd.

Third, if you got lost on this brand new delivery or confused as to the direction of the delivery and this slowed you down etc then this is another unforseen circumstance that delayed you and made completion impossible. Another cast iron reason for not being able to complete due to circumstances beyond your control. You again acted correctly by informing manager on return.

I honestly cant see this sacking being legitimate OR upheld. Remember, the crucial point is this - did you wilfully fail to inform them before you left that you would be bringing mail back? That's the crux of it. If something unforseen happened that caused you to bring the mail back then you can't be held accountable for wilful delay. That something unforseen in this case is clearly either an injury worsening during delivery or you getting lost, confused and delayed by an unfamiliar round that you reasonablly thought would be as simple and straight forward as other rounds you had done first time with far fewer problems. On the other hand did you not inform them before you left because you didn't know you were obliged to do so because they had not held training sessions to inform you of this while you were actually on duty in the office. Sounds like a combination of the two here. You have been well intentioned all the way through, and the tribunal should be fine because RM correct proceedure has not been followed. Their proceedure must be lawful full stop. And it is not lawful to sack someone for breeching rules they had not been made aware of or could reasonablly have known about. Nor is it legal to sack someone for being the victim of unforseen circumstances beyond their control (eg an injury) when they have acted in good faith at all times. I've seen it said that the tribunal checks only to see that proceedure has been followed. That proceedure includes the words 'reasonable' All you have to do then is ask RM in the tribunal to prove that it is 'reasonable' to sack someone for being a victim of unforseen circumstances ie injury/getting lost or for not being informed about proceedure due to lack of training.

sorry about the long answer good luck though you shouldn't need it.

[Indy]

Essentially that rule is that if you think you are unable to complete you must inform a manager BEFORE you leave the office. Simple as that. If you didn't do that then that was your biggest mistake

There are times when the mail volume wouldn't in itself mean you'd need to cut-off but factors 'on the road' mean that you do. Example would be the time I spent 3 hours stuck in a broken lift of a residents block. I was fine but was buggered if I was going to go 2 hours over my time as management at the time were using all sorts of excuses not to pay OT. They would have (with straight faces) genuinely believed that it was my fault as I could have used the stairs. I got back to time manager etc all L O N G gone so left mail under my frame. Threw it off next morning and nobody was any the wiser other than me saying that I'd got stuck in a lift much to other peoples delight and ribbing. There have also been cases where the police have temporarily closed roads with a "should be re-open in a hour" only for it not to be or too late for me to complete.

Theres also the much more important question of how many mangers would actually still be in the office to take a call from an OPG at say 2pm ours are gone before(?) 1

If what the OP is saying is correct then its a scary development.

[Cheetah]

4. My biggest mistake was that I did not call anyone on my mobile.

No. That's not right, and I don't think you have a good grasp of the rules around cutting off/bringing mail back.

Essentially that rule is that if you think you are unable to complete you must inform a manager BEFORE you leave the office. Simple as that. If you didn't do that then that was your biggest mistake, because if you do tell them you can safely bring mail back. That would only be the case ofcourse if your manager said 'OK fine, take it all out, see what you do then bring the rest back.' - or if he/she said something else like 'OK i understand you might not get it all done' but fails to give you further instructions and walks off. On the other hand if your manager said 'Take what you can deliver and leave the rest' then whatever you then take out you have agreed to deliver - you have agreed you have estimated the workload and wil have time to deliver it and if you then don't deliver it because you simply 'run out of time' you have wilfully delayed the mail. Essentially you have delayed the mail by failing to meet your own promise of delivering it all.

I hope that's clear and it's how I understand it so anyone with a different view please let us know.

The quote you used-

'If an individual is prevented from completing their delivery for any reason, it is essential that this is reported
immediately either by returning to the office or by telephone (telephone costs will be refunded).'

is totally unrelated to 'cutting off' and is foremost to do with unforeseeen occurances like accidents, delays from a flood or road closure for example, or a bike malfunction etc and has no central bearing in this case. So the fact you told your manager when you returned is fine, you met this general proceedure, but it is not really relevant. You have been sacked not because you did or didn't follow this proceedure about informing a manager on return or by phone before return, it is the proceedure about informing a manager before you leave the office that you need to read and apparently didn't follow.

If it were me I would fight this on a few grounds. Remember you have basically been sacked for failing to follow proceedure not for wilful delay no matter what RM say as you did not act in a wilful way to delay the mail, it was not actually delayed, and you did your best to deliver it and informed a manager at the first opportunity!

Ok so firstly you didn't know or understand the correct proceedure so couldn't be expected to follow it. This is what you say has happened because like you I'm also PT and also don't know whats going on because all the meeting are done before I get in. You really didn't know what to do. You didn't inform them before you left that you might bring mail back because you simply didn't know that was what you were meant to do. And from what you have written you clearly still don't know that's what you were meant to do.

Second, you say you had an injury. If this slowed you down unexpectedly, ie if you thought you could deliver on time but couldn't because your injury got worse during the delivery, or made you slower than you thought you would be then this is an unforseen occurance and you followed correct proceedure by informing manager on return. I'm not quite sure from what you wrote if that's what happened but it sounds like it. You can't be legitimately sacked for have an injury on duty and failing to complete your workload as a result. It's absurd.

Third, if you got lost on this brand new delivery or confused as to the direction of the delivery and this slowed you down etc then this is another unforseen circumstance that delayed you and made completion impossible. Another cast iron reason for not being able to complete due to circumstances beyond your control. You again acted correctly by informing manager on return.

I honestly cant see this sacking being legitimate OR upheld. Remember, the crucial point is this - did you wilfully fail to inform them before you left that you would be bringing mail back? That's the crux of it. If something unforseen happened that caused you to bring the mail back then you can't be held accountable for wilful delay. That something unforseen in this case is clearly either an injury worsening during delivery or you getting lost, confused and delayed by an unfamiliar round that you reasonablly thought would be as simple and straight forward as other rounds you had done first time with far fewer problems. On the other hand did you not inform them before you left because you didn't know you were obliged to do so because they had not held training sessions to inform you of this while you were actually on duty in the office. Sounds like a combination of the two here. You have been well intentioned all the way through, and the tribunal should be fine because RM correct proceedure has not been followed. Their proceedure must be lawful full stop. And it is not lawful to sack someone for breeching rules they had not been made aware of or could reasonablly have known about. Nor is it legal to sack someone for being the victim of unforseen circumstances beyond their control (eg an injury) when they have acted in good faith at all times. I've seen it said that the tribunal checks only to see that proceedure has been followed. That proceedure includes the words 'reasonable' All you have to do then is ask RM in the tribunal to prove that it is 'reasonable' to sack someone for being a victim of unforseen circumstances ie injury/getting lost or for not being informed about proceedure due to lack of training.

sorry about the long answer good luck though you shouldn't need it.

I have to disagree strongly Merecat, but would strongly advise Beastman to seek clarification from the highest level possible. It may be a matter of how we interpret the "Overunning delivery" document, but in my opinion it is central in beastmans defence. The union may not be representing you but they should at least clarify and advise when requested, ring or e-mail HQ at London.....

Yes you are right whenever possible we should inform a supervisor that we are unable to complete, but we don't allways know that we cannot complete due to unforseen circumstances and provision has to be there for that eventuality. Say you have a phone call to telling you a close family member has been taken to hospital, does that mean we have to complete before we are allowed to go to hospital..... I think not. Say when you are on delivery you become unwell (you may have ligament problem and be in agony,hardly able to walk) do we have to complete ? Of course not...... I had an incident where I had a hospital appointment to attend, my pouches were locked in the back of a van with no one able to get in, by the time they got in and dropped the pouches off I was over an hour late, I phoned in (but could have returned to the office as the document states EITHER) and they had to get my round covered as I had to finish on time. This is in my opinion how this document can be interpreted and that is the situation beastman found himself, and I think he followed procedure....

Anyhow seek clarification Beastman would be my advise, can any of the senior members on here give their take on this ?????

[fishtank]

Wilful delay relates to the Post Office Act, 1953 Ch 36

58.-(l) If any officer of the Post Office, contrary to his duty, opens, or procures or suffers to be opened, any postal packet in course of transmission by post, or wilfully detains or delays, or procures or suffers to be detained or delayed, any such postal packet, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable to imprisonment or to a fine, or to both.

It's not even relevant now as it's been replaced by the general offence of interference with mail (section 84) of the Postal Services Act.

It was meant to deter theft or the dumping of mail.
It was not meant to be used to punish performance or failure to follow procedure.
It's use in this case is completely inappropriate.
It sums RM management up really....
Hooper and Sawyer were right the only way is down with this lot.

[beastman]

I have to disagree strongly Merecat, but would strongly advise Beastman to seek clarification from the highest level possible. It may be a matter of how we interpret the "Overunning delivery" document, but in my opinion it is central in beastmans defence. The union may not be representing you but they should at least clarify and advise when requested, ring or e-mail HQ at London.....

Yes you are right whenever possible we should inform a supervisor that we are unable to complete, but we don't allways know that we cannot complete due to unforseen circumstances and provision has to be there for that eventuality. Say you have a phone call to telling you a close family member has been taken to hospital, does that mean we have to complete before we are allowed to go to hospital..... I think not. Say when you are on delivery you become unwell (you may have ligament problem and be in agony,hardly able to walk) do we have to complete ? Of course not...... I had an incident where I had a hospital appointment to attend, my pouches were locked in the back of a van with no one able to get in, by the time they got in and dropped the pouches off I was over an hour late, I phoned in (but could have returned to the office as the document states EITHER) and they had to get my round covered as I had to finish on time. This is in my opinion how this document can be interpreted and that is the situation beastman found himself, and I think he followed procedure....

Anyhow seek clarification Beastman would be my advise, can any of the senior members on here give their take on this ?????

Thanks again for all for your comments and advice people. The recent and above comment shows how confusing the "wilful day" thing is and the procedures surrounding it. It really shouldn't be like this but I'm sure RM deliberately make it so. I suppose I could telephone RM HQ but realistically getting a verbal response won't be worth anything. An email or a written document confirming if my actions do or do not qualify under the specific definition of "wilful delay" would be nice but I suspect that might be easier said than done. It seems in some peoples eyes that I didn't wilfully delay the mail as the overrunning delivery document states the procedure of coming back to the office, which I did follow, yet others think this isn't the case.

Has anyone got an cunning suggestions to get a definitive, documented and official answer from RM that coming back to the office means I didn't wilfully delay the mail ?

[clashcityrocker]

The "mistake" if it was one was agreeing to deliver 3/4 of the round without knowing if you could.
You had a row taken off you. In front of a witness you should have said you would attempt to deliver the remainder but in the event that wasn't possible, as you were unfamiliar with the duty, what did they want you to do.
Once you had agreed to complete what was left of the duty you left yourself on very dodgy ground - as you are finding out the hard way.

[meercat]

I have to disagree strongly Merecat,

lol what with? Do you disagree with every point I made? Fair enough I suppose!

[beastman]

The "mistake" if it was one was agreeing to deliver 3/4 of the round without knowing if you could.
You had a row taken off you. In front of a witness you should have said you would attempt to deliver the remainder but in the event that wasn't possible, as you were unfamiliar with the duty, what did they want you to do.
Once you had agreed to complete what was left of the duty you left yourself on very dodgy ground - as you are finding out the hard way.

Yes indeed I am! I noticed you have a huge amount on posts on this forum so I guess you have seen and heard a few things. In view of the circumstances, in particular of the 8 points I've detailed, would you recommend any course of action to try and fight this in the most effective way?

[AdTheBad]

Goodluck Beastman,

Personally I would try to cite the lack of any official defintive generic operational procedure (sorry, swallowed a dictionary) regarding cutting off, overrunning work times, what constitutes "delivery" (within curtailage of delivery point or inside actual delivery point) etc, etc.

This lack of the above (or localised variations) has caused (as shown by the many discussions on this forum) individuals to make their own interpretations of operational procedures.

In my humble opinion, this is a massive failure on behalf of the union execs to demand clarification and definition.

I know how shite you must be feeling right now. I hope you can distance yourself from the stress a little, be kind to yourself and find something good and positive to focus on.

[Cheetah]

Okay due to the confusion regards the overuning document, ( however I would e-mail the union, they owe you a response and if you have followed the correct procedure there is no case to answer) there are a couple of fronts I would fight on.......

1. Most importantly you state that you received no WTL training regarding that document, it 100% clearly states that the line manager in conjunction with the CWU unit rep shall conduct a WTL session including all those absent on that day. HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW ANY PROCEDURE IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED / BEEN TRAINED / BRIEFED ON IT. You did not have that, so how do you know what to do when unforseen circumstances arise and you need to cut off whilst on duty for whatever reason(injury, personal family situation, hospital appointment etc, etc). So you interpreted the procedure to the best of your ability as there was absolutally no way you could complete due to the excrutiating pain, what else could you do....

2. I would also follow the line that you are not being treated fairly and being discriminated against (The conduct code says this is your right) as others have been subjected to no disciplinary action at all for the same offence.......

3. I would also put forward the point that what you did on that day seemed perfectly acceptable to the line manager as she told you of no consequences, surely she should have told you there and then if you cut off there would be consequences, as she didn't thats their failing not yours, coupled with the fact you were not aware of the procedure everything seemed okay, you knew of others who had done the same so felt you were doing nothing wrong.....

4. Don't mention your point 4. but make them fully aware of your point 5.

As I've said before i'm certainally no expert, but put in your position that's how I would play it. I sincerely hope I have been of some help and can't see how any fair person could deem that you have been treated fairly...... If I were on that panel I would be advising you to take out a greivance against them !!!!!!
Anyhow very best of luck, hope all turns out in your favour

[hantsman]

Okay due to the confusion regards the overuning document, ( however I would e-mail the union, they owe you a response and if you have followed the correct procedure there is no case to answer) there are a couple of fronts I would fight on.......

1. Most importantly you state that you received no WTL training regarding that document, it 100% clearly states that the line manager in conjunction with the CWU unit rep shall conduct a WTL session including all those absent on that day. HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW ANY PROCEDURE IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED / BEEN TRAINED / BRIEFED ON IT. You did not have that, so how do you know what to do when unforseen circumstances arise and you need to cut off whilst on duty for whatever reason(injury, personal family situation, hospital appointment etc, etc). So you interpreted the procedure to the best of your ability as there was absolutally no way you could complete due to the excrutiating pain, what else could you do....

2. I would also follow the line that you are not being treated fairly and being discriminated against (The conduct code says this is your right) as others have been subjected to no disciplinary action at all for the same offence.......

3. I would also put forward the point that what you did on that day seemed perfectly acceptable to the line manager as she told you of no consequences, surely she should have told you there and then if you cut off there would be consequences, as she didn't thats their failing not yours, coupled with the fact you were not aware of the procedure everything seemed okay, you knew of others who had done the same so felt you were doing nothing wrong.....

4. Don't mention your point 4. but make them fully aware of your point 5.

As I've said before i'm certainally no expert, but put in your position that's how I would play it. I sincerely hope I have been of some help and can't see how any fair person could deem that you have been treated fairly...... If I were on that panel I would be advising you to take out a greivance against them !!!!!!
Anyhow very best of luck, hope all turns out in your favour

Top advice IMHO

There are 3 on the panel normally, the judge and 2 lay people but who are on the union side and the HR side.

[beastman]

thanks again for some of the recent additions to this thread - there been some cracking advice given.

Does anyone have a pdf copy of the latest conduct code?

this one here looks like it might be out of date (appears to be from 2008 going by the date of the thread-although the pdf is undated):

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... php?id=321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I say this because the one in the bundle from RM's solictors appears to be dated September 2010 - annoying it looks to have omitted the part about mitigating circumstances!