under estimating handbacks=wilful delay?

[daveyeff]

im asking this on behalf of my colleague who was suspended from duty yesterday, the dom is charging him with wilful delay. on friday him and his driver told the dom they would not be able to complete, as they had far too many packets to deliver on top of mail. the dom told them to leave their packets and do the mail. he would get the packets covered. anyway, when they finished and got back to the office, the packets were still there undelivered. the next day (sat) there was lapsing to be done, so they told the dom they would not get the lapsing done because fridays packets still had to be done. the dom said he would get their lapsing covered. they subsequently finished 15 mins before their finishing time and on the way back to the office the driver dropped his partner at the train station to get his transport home. the driver arrived back at the office 10 mins before his due time and was told to do kill offs for the 10 mins. on monday my colleage arrived for work only to be told he was suspended pending a factfinder and would be charged with wilful delay. the rep has said it was because he didnt come back to the office. they clearly under estimated their time but by only 10 mins. this sort of leeway is practically impossible to judge, because it was packets. if they had despatched maybe 10 or 12 they wouldve been OVER their time by about 10 or 15 mins. sorry this is a long drawn out affair, but some nifty knowledgeable advice and experience are needed on this one. thanks

[fishtank]

Ask the manager what was delayed in this ridiculous wilful delay case?
The only slightly dubious point is whether not returning to the office is accepted practice but that would warrant an informal counselling session at worst.
Get the area rep involved from day one and watch the manager disappear up his own arse.

[daveyeff]

cheers fish, i asked the rep the same thing, but he,s said the dom had to pay someone overtime to get their lapsing done. and they must,ve known they would be under their time. in particular, the driver involved in the case asked why he wasnt suspended also? he was told '' because he came back to the office''. it would seem that not returning incurs a charge of wilful delay?

[ashadd]

cheers fish, i asked the rep the same thing, but he,s said the dom had to pay someone overtime to get their lapsing done. and they must,ve known they would be under their time. in particular, the driver involved in the case asked why he wasnt suspended also? he was told '' because he came back to the office''. it would seem that not returning incurs a charge of wilful delay?

Sorry, but you still do lapsing ????? How ? why ???

[daveyeff]

summer lapsing,,,, they reckon(according to their figures) mail is down so we,ve got time to do it. its bollox of course

[Himaggen]

They could make a case for abandonment of duty or unauthorised absence, but certainly not wilful delay.

[daveyeff]

They could make a case for abandonment of duty or unauthorised absence, but certainly not wilful delay.

well he had finished his duty so i dont see how they could use that, also they know some staff give other drivers their pda to take back to the office for them if they are finished their duty so they know it goes on. i think (personally) the dom is cliutching at straws. also the suspended lad thinks he,s going to pass it up regardless of what he or the rep has to say at the factfinder.

[chunk]

the manager asked you take yesterdays packets in place of the absorption.
so essentially that was equivalent to your "lapse".
seems to me you covered your duty and did some extra.

I cant see how overtime figures in this
if the manager had covered your packets yesterday as he said he would ..
he would not have needed to pay overtime today.as you would have been doing the lapse !

[resperin]

the manager asked you take yesterdays packets in place of the absorption.
so essentially that was equivalent to your "lapse".
seems to me you covered your duty and did some extra.

I cant see how overtime figures in this
if the manager had covered your packets yesterday as he said he would ..
he would not have needed to pay overtime today.as you would have been doing the lapse !

Couldn't of said it better

[Geordie]

the manager needs to be asked at the fact finding why he was not charged with wilful delay the day before for not getting the packets covered and thus failing the uso.

[Lincox]

Im not sure whether packets come under the USO Geordie?

[iceman1277]

cheers fish, i asked the rep the same thing, but he,s said the dom had to pay someone overtime to get their lapsing done. and they must,ve known they would be under their time. in particular, the driver involved in the case asked why he wasnt suspended also? he was told '' because he came back to the office''. it would seem that not returning incurs a charge of wilful delay?

Sorry, but you still do lapsing ????? How ? why ???

we laps 2 duty all year

[theboropostie]

Tricky one...

With regards to the abandonment of duty stuff - when the revision went in if the duty that was signed for and agreed starts and finishes at the DO they may have a point??

Unfortunately too many people take the piss with this kind of thing (i'm sure we all know the ones??) which makes genuine cut offs a problem that really should;t be there.

[Himaggen]

They could make a case for abandonment of duty or unauthorised absence, but certainly not wilful delay.

well he had finished his duty so i dont see how they could use that

You've already said that they were dropped off 15 minutes before their finish time. They are not paid to do a duty, they are paid to perform any reasonable instruction for which they have been trained up to their allotted finish time. By leaving before that time they have failed to be available for any work within their allotted time and as such have either abandoned or become absent without authorisation.

[POSTMAN]

1: What comes into the office must go out,packets or not.

2:The manager is a cock.