Postmen Signing Recordeds

[Postie45]

Until we get told to check signatures I think the whole process is on extremely flimsy ground and I cant see any grounds for misconduct so long as the item has some kind of scrawl next to the barcode.
Even if the receiving customer says that "i didnt sign" and claims non delivery but there is SOMETHING signed in the box then it all comes to a matter of one persons word against another, so without the necessary proof against the postman in these circumstances there would be no comeback on them.

There is no proof needed.
This isn't a court of law.
All that is needed to dismiss someone for gross misconduct is reasonable belief.
That means your manager decides what he/she thinks happened based on the facts they have at their disposal.
What that usually means in reality is that the manager will maybe give you the benefit of the doubt on the first occasion but the second time a customer complains the picture changes.
Think of it like Russian Roulette with your job.

I understand that they "could" try to dismiss for gross misconduct but as ive pointed out, the signature is very vague proof, surely its something the Union would give a postman full backing on ? If not I believe it would fall under grounds for unfair dismissal in a court.

[fishtank]

If not I believe it would fall under grounds for unfair dismissal in a court.

Why?
An employment tribunal would not be interested in whether the manager could prove you signed it.
They would only be interested in whether the manager followed Royal Mail procedure.
That procedure is based on the system of looking at the facts of the case and coming up with a reasonable decision based on those facts.
There is no burden of proof anywhere in Royal Mail's procedure,it would be ludicrous for any employer to have to prove something to a standard that would hold up in a court of law every time they had to dismiss someone.
The costs would be huge and the timescales would be ridiculous.

[Postie45]

If not I believe it would fall under grounds for unfair dismissal in a court.

Why?
An employment tribunal would not be interested in whether the manager could prove you signed it.
They would only be interested in whether the manager followed Royal Mail procedure.
That procedure is based on the system of looking at the facts of the case and coming up with a reasonable decision based on those facts.
There is no burden of proof anywhere in Royal Mail's procedure,it would be ludicrous for any employer to have to prove something to a standard that would hold up in a court of law every time they had to dismiss someone.
The costs would be huge and the timescales would be ridiculous.

I dont get how youre seeing that it would be a reasonable decision based on limited + errant facts to dismiss. There has to be some evidence for dismissal, unless you can prove theft I dont see how it would fly. The manager could say "we think he may have stolen an item of mail" The postman can claim he/she followed RM procedure and is losing his job for it.

From Directgov -

"If your employer dismisses you they must have a fair reason for their action, for example because of your conduct at work. Find out more about what fair reasons for dismissal are, and what your employment rights are if you are dismissed.

Your conduct
If your employer has dismissed you because of your conduct, it usually means you have broken one or more of the terms of your employment. For example:
continually missing work
poor discipline
drug or alcohol abuse
theft or dishonesty"


so, I assume it would fall under the "theft or dishonesty" criteria, which again there is no actual evidence of

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Nor would there be for Drug or Alcohol abuse.

As far as I know Royal Mail do not have a drug or alcohol testing scheme in place. However they can dismiss you on the reasonable suspicion that you were abusing both. Without "real" evidence they can only base their assumption on past incidents and make a reasonable decision.

Why would failing to get a signature, or falsifying one be any different. Thats what Fishtank is pointing out when he mentions "first offence".

[fishtank]

If three or four customers on your walk complain that you put recorded deliveries through their door without getting a signature is it not reasonable to believe that you did?
What is the alternative,that they all got together one day to plan your downfall..is that the more reasonable explanation?
Do you honestly think that a manager should take no action over those complaints because he/she has no forensic proof despite the fact that three or four of your customers had accused you of exactly the same thing?
Do you really believe that an employment tribunal would say the decision the manager took that you were guilty of the offence was an unfair or unreasonable decision?
If you do...good luck with that.

[Postie45]

so now we`re saying it requires 3 or 4 complaints in a short enough period of time ?
Im not saying people should just deliver recordeds unsigned, im just seeing what kind of protection we have if things are claimed as not being received. I know some postmen deliver to more less desirable types than others. I would think it very unfortunate for a postman to lose their job under these circumstances (if innocent of course)

[fng]

I can't see the problem..... Really I can't. The rules are that the postie doesn't sign for the recorded, end off ! it's not rocket science.

I'm not a stickler for the rules, and if there are rules to be broken when it suits me or helps me then all well and good, but I break them nowing the consequences. I'll be damned if I will break the rules and face the consequences just to help a "customer" even if it is the sweet dear old lady who tips a fiver at xmas..... she ain't gonna pay my mortgage when i'm sacked.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

so now we`re saying it requires 3 or 4 complaints in a short enough period of time ?

No - we are saying whatever is considered reasonable, there are no hard and fast rules.

Im not saying people should just deliver recordeds unsigned, im just seeing what kind of protection we have if things are claimed as not being received. I know some postmen deliver to more less desirable types than others. I would think it very unfortunate for a postman to lose their job under these circumstances (if innocent of course)

Neither are we saying its fair, right or even impartial, all I am trying to do is make sure people are aware of WHAT could happen. There is no point at all in saying as long as you do this then your safe, when blatantly that's untrue.

One things for sure, if you are signing for them, or just posting them, they you are increasing the chances of someone complaining, and a pattern forming for a reasonable decision to be made.

[Lounge Lizard]

Until we get told to check signatures I think the whole process is on extremely flimsy ground and I cant see any grounds for misconduct so long as the item has some kind of scrawl next to the barcode.
Even if the receiving customer says that "i didnt sign" and claims non delivery but there is SOMETHING signed in the box then it all comes to a matter of one persons word against another, so without the necessary proof against the postman in these circumstances there would be no comeback on them.

There is no proof needed.
This isn't a court of law.
All that is needed to dismiss someone for gross misconduct is reasonable belief.
That means your manager decides what he/she thinks happened based on the facts they have at their disposal.
What that usually means in reality is that the manager will maybe give you the benefit of the doubt on the first occasion but the second time a customer complains the picture changes.
Think of it like Russian Roulette with your job.

Absolutely, correct again.
A friend in the neighbouring city asked me about his postman signing for Recordeds and putting them through the door, having checked on line it was the recipients name in capitals but obviously NOT the recipient's signature but the postman's version of a signature of that name.
I didn't suggest he complained and get his postman in big trouble but that obviously was his prerogative.
Yes, your manager decides what he/she thinks happened based on the facts they have at their disposal and in this case it's without doubt a fraudulent signature and equivalent of theft of the 95p paid for Special Delivery, both of which surely are Gross Misconduct.
Why colleagues still do this is beyond my comprehension, especially with rushing round to get home early no longer being the case.

[fishtank]

This is an excerpt from a real dismissal letter.
I have edited it for obvious reasons but look at the language used.
Can you see the words proof anywhere?

conduct.jpg

[Postie45]

Until we get told to check signatures I think the whole process is on extremely flimsy ground and I cant see any grounds for misconduct so long as the item has some kind of scrawl next to the barcode.
Even if the receiving customer says that "i didnt sign" and claims non delivery but there is SOMETHING signed in the box then it all comes to a matter of one persons word against another, so without the necessary proof against the postman in these circumstances there would be no comeback on them.

There is no proof needed.
This isn't a court of law.
All that is needed to dismiss someone for gross misconduct is reasonable belief.
That means your manager decides what he/she thinks happened based on the facts they have at their disposal.
What that usually means in reality is that the manager will maybe give you the benefit of the doubt on the first occasion but the second time a customer complains the picture changes.
Think of it like Russian Roulette with your job.

Absolutely, correct again.
A friend in the neighbouring city asked me about his postman signing for Recordeds and putting them through the door, having checked on line it was the recipients name in capitals but obviously NOT the recipient's signature but the postman's version of a signature of that name.
I didn't suggest he complained and get his postman in big trouble but that obviously was his prerogative.
Yes, your manager decides what he/she thinks happened based on the facts they have at their disposal and in this case it's without doubt a fraudulent signature and equivalent of theft of the 95p paid for Special Delivery, both of which surely are Gross Misconduct.
Why colleagues still do this is beyond my comprehension, especially with rushing round to get home early no longer being the case. :crazy:

This is kind of the example Im talking about ... "obviously not the recipients signature" "without doubt a fraudulent signature" ... I have had countless numbers of recordeds over the years which get signed for with what I dont believe is the customers actual signature.
In your example you`re saying the postman did sign for it, which is fair enough he deserves to be disciplined. but what Im saying is the customers who dont use their normal signature - what if they were to call up and claim they hadnt had this item delivered ?

[Postie45]

This is an excerpt from a real dismissal letter.
I have edited it for obvious reasons but look at the language used.
Can you see the words proof anywhere?

conduct.jpg

bit of an apples & oranges comparison in my opinion. The "victim" would appear to have little to gain, unlike a customer who could receive an item for free then claim they didnt get it.

[Lounge Lizard]

Until we get told to check signatures I think the whole process is on extremely flimsy ground and I cant see any grounds for misconduct so long as the item has some kind of scrawl next to the barcode.
Even if the receiving customer says that "i didnt sign" and claims non delivery but there is SOMETHING signed in the box then it all comes to a matter of one persons word against another, so without the necessary proof against the postman in these circumstances there would be no comeback on them.

There is no proof needed.
This isn't a court of law.
All that is needed to dismiss someone for gross misconduct is reasonable belief.
That means your manager decides what he/she thinks happened based on the facts they have at their disposal.
What that usually means in reality is that the manager will maybe give you the benefit of the doubt on the first occasion but the second time a customer complains the picture changes.
Think of it like Russian Roulette with your job.

Absolutely, correct again.
A friend in the neighbouring city asked me about his postman signing for Recordeds and putting them through the door, having checked on line it was the recipients name in capitals but obviously NOT the recipient's signature but the postman's version of a signature of that name.
I didn't suggest he complained and get his postman in big trouble but that obviously was his prerogative.
Yes, your manager decides what he/she thinks happened based on the facts they have at their disposal and in this case it's without doubt a fraudulent signature and equivalent of theft of the 95p paid for Special Delivery, both of which surely are Gross Misconduct.
Why colleagues still do this is beyond my comprehension, especially with rushing round to get home early no longer being the case.

This is kind of the example Im talking about ... "obviously not the recipients signature" "without doubt a fraudulent signature" ... I have had countless numbers of recordeds over the years which get signed for with what I dont believe is the customers actual signature.
In your example you`re saying the postman did sign for it, which is fair enough he deserves to be disciplined. but what Im saying is the customers who dont use their normal signature - what if they were to call up and claim they hadnt had this item delivered ?

I don't doubt that there might be very, very rare cases of customers that don't use their normal signature for fraudulant reasons ( and I don't think any of use will lose sleep worrying about that happening to us ) but that doesn't detract from the fact that we all should be doing the job properly.

[fishtank]

bit of an apples & oranges comparison in my opinion. The "victim" would appear to have little to gain, unlike a customer who could receive an item for free then claim they didnt get it.

Believe me the "victim" had a lot to gain but i'm not going to go into that on here,the point is the use of the words "reason to believe","in all probability" and "i believe" by the dismissing manager.
He had no proof.
He didn't need any.
He made his decision based on the facts he had and his "belief" of what happened.
The appeals manager agreed.

[Postie45]

yeah best not to lose sleep till it happens to you ....