Employment Tribunal Judgement

[brothermagrew]

In the case of Mr S Williamson v Royal Mail Group Limited.

Employment Tribunal Judgement Mr S Williamson v Royal Mail Group Limited.pdf

[BoltonPostie]

What a disgusting set of managers we have.

[liamlayor]

The extracts from this judgement reproduced below speak volumes about the calibre of the two managers named - are they still in post or have they been promoted yet?
Also, why was the claimant's evidence undisputed or unchallenged by the respondent's witnesses - or should that be witness as there appears to have been only one witness for the respondents?

"We accepted the undisputed evidence of the claimant that he submitted a grievance in relation to the respondent’s failure to make reasonable adjustments and on the grounds that the rehabilitation plan he was offered would reintroduce him to his full duties too quickly. The Tribunal accepted the undisputed evidence of the claimant that he did not receive any response to that grievance or to his subsequent letter under stage 2 of the grievance procedure. We also accepted the undisputed evidence that neither of the sets of notes of the meeting with Mr Merchant which were provided by the respondent accurately recorded the contents of that meeting.

The Tribunal accepted the undisputed evidence of the claimant that he had requested a staged reintroduction to his full duties, but Mr. Merchant refused his request and told him to “take it or leave it”.

The Tribunal finds on the basis of the unchallenged evidence of the claimant and of Mr. Price , that in October 2012 Mr Clark told the claimant “we’re sick and tired of molly-coddling you”. In November 2010 Mr Clark issued the claimant with a stage one warning for his absence, informing him that “there was no mitigation put forward that would lead me not to issue a stage warning at this point…the attendance procedure is about not believing if an absence is genuine, it is that he has failed to attend work on a regular basis”."

It absolutely beggars belief that these people are managers but congratulations to Mr Williamson for standing up to them alone - which reminds me, where were the union in this?

[jack]

liamlaylor quote

which reminds me, where were the union in this?

[Cyclopz]

That's a really good read.

One question I have is this. The claimant (Postman) was reinstated presumably following an appeal by an appeal manager.
The claimant was given a position suitable to his needs, basically he was given the job he wanted following an appeal.

So why take the matter to the tribunal?
He has proved at the tribunal that he was discriminated against on grounds of his disability so is it compensation he is after?
Why take the matter further when he got what he wanted at the appeal stage?

Thanks.

[liamlayor]

That's a really good read.

One question I have is this. The claimant (Postman) was reinstated presumably following an appeal by an appeal manager.
The claimant was given a position suitable to his needs, basically he was given the job he wanted following an appeal.

So why take the matter to the tribunal?
He has proved at the tribunal that he was discriminated against on grounds of his disability so is it compensation he is after?
Why take the matter further when he got what he wanted at the appeal stage?

Thanks.

I take it you have little or no dealings with people with a disability, if you had, I don't think you would be asking such a crass question. I would have taken them to a Tribunal too if I'd been him - he WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST and that is against the law and should not happen anyway in this day and age. Perhaps this case will be a reminder to all the other managers that they can't always sweep things under the carpet and get away with it.

[Cyclopz]

It was a genuine question spurned from a genuine interest.

What will be the outcome of the tribunal for the claimant.
Will he receive compensation?

[liamlayor]

[/quote="Cyclopz"]It was a genuine question spurned from a genuine interest.

What will be the outcome of the tribunal for the claimant.
Will he receive compensation?[/quote]

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick, Cyclops, but there are too many people who think that all people who claim to be disabled are either raking it in from the state or swinging the lead at work.

I don't know why Mr. Williamson took his case to a tribunal but he clearly appears to have been put through the wringer by his managers and maybe thought that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with what they had done to him. By taking the case to the tribunal, it might prevent this sorry pair from doing the same to other people with disabilities. Mr. Williamson should be commended for standing up for his rights, whether he did it only for the compensation or not, and I hope he got thousands.

Meanwhile, my curiosity is not piqued by what Mr. Williamson did, or why. What I would really like to know is what has happened to those two managers, one of whom seems to have been incapable of accurately recording the notes of a meeting he had with Mr. Williamson, even though he made at least two diferent versions (and one has to wonder why he did this and why neither of the sets of notes read by the tribunal reflected what Mr. Williamson claims had been said? ). I have already drawn my own conclusion on that point and wonder what conclusion Mr Merchant's superiors have come to and whether any action has been taken by them?

It would also appear that the other manager, Mr Clark, had his own agenda, though Christ knows what it was, when dealing with Mr Williamson's rehabilitation plan. Perhaps he would have allowed Mr Williamson to work indoors if he had arrived for work in a hearse? This may sound sensationalist but, having read the full document above, it is not too far-fetched to speculate that Mr Williamson, who suffered frequent fits and collapses and is said to have worked on a rural round, could have ended up dead.

The only other matter that I am curious about is, once again, why was there only 1 witness for the respondent who didn't appear to know anything about the decisions Mr. Merchant and Mr. Clark made? Where were Mr Merchant and Mr Clark? Why weren't they at the tribunal giving evidence? I think their absence speaks volumes.

Well done, again, Mr Williamson! I hope you're now relaxing in the Caribbean with the oodles of compensation I hope you were awarded.

"If you try sometime, you just might find you get what you need" Mr W obviously got "Satisfaction" and the feckin' Royal Mail got "Painted black"

The bullies are the ones who run away to cry when those they have bullied stand up and fight back

[Cyclopz]

Royal mail are forever at employment tribunals, they attend loads of them so the absence of the managers is a deliberate ploy.
The company that represents Royal mail at tribunals most likely told the managers not to appear so they could not be cross examined.

I have experience of a manager who was involved in a dismissal case that was told not to give evidence at a tribunal.
The manager made such a bad job of the initial investigation into a posties dismissal that he was ordered not to attend the hearing.

I too would love to know what happened to the managers concerned, I doubt very much they have left the business.
Mr Williamson would do well to put in a bullying and harassment case against these managers but what Royal mail will probably say is
the complaint is now out of time, IE the incident happened so long ago it is not possible to investigate it now.

[liamlayor]

Royal mail are forever at employment tribunals, they attend loads of them so the absence of the managers is a deliberate ploy.
The company that represents Royal mail at tribunals most likely told the managers not to appear so they could not be cross examined.

I have experience of a manager who was involved in a dismissal case that was told not to give evidence at a tribunal.
The manager made such a bad job of the initial investigation into a posties dismissal that he was ordered not to attend the hearing.

I too would love to know what happened to the managers concerned, I doubt very much they have left the business.
Mr Williamson would do well to put in a bullying and harassment case against these managers but what Royal mail will probably say is
the complaint is now out of time, IE the incident happened so long ago it is not possible to investigate it now.

The managers in Mr Williamson's case totally ignored a 1st and 2nd stage grievance he submitted, this happens all the time and the Bullying & harassment lot are just as bad - take a look at how many complaints are accepted by them and how many are redefined BY THEM as grievances. They don't seem to be aware that bullying & harassment is defined by how the person on the receiving end of it perceives it, not by someone in an office reading complaints from grown men and women who have reached the end of their tether.

Have you read the thread on Bullying & harassment in delivery offices in the Blue Shirts forum?

[Cyclopz]

Not yet but I will be doing that next.

I have been reading a bit about employment tribunals and how it looks like taking Royal mail to an employment tribunal is going to be far riskier than it used to be:

The maximum amount for a costs order, requiring the employer or employee to contribute to the other’s costs, is increased from £10,000 to £20,000. The tribunal or employment judge has a duty to consider awarding costs where the case had no reasonable prospect of success or where one of the parties or its representative has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or unreasonably, but can award them even if this is not the case. Practical Lawyer magazine suggests that tribunals are likely to move away from a general “no costs” presumption towards the county court system of “loser pays”, which could make the consequences of losing more serious for both employers and employees.

http://hrdiversity.co.uk/employment-tribunals/

Justice for the rich.

[BoltonPostie]

The answer to that Cyclops is that the DOM Mr.Merchant was `rewarded` just like the DOM at Blackburn Delivery Office (Mr Dudgeon)with a promotion to acting DSM......you couldn't make it up could you.
Royal Mail does not tolerate harassment but it's alright to reward managers who lose tribunal cases for that reason?
Oh and if you think this is just a one off in this office it isn't,not that the union are interested with comments like "But he's a good manager he saves them(RM) money being trotted out"
How does legal fees of at least £25k just on this case alone equate to `office savings?` He must be really saving them loads of money,I'm sure more lapsing is the answer ,more bent than the scam going on at Shawshank comes to mind.

[liamlayor]

Bolton Postie says (tongue in cheek) that Royal Mail doesn't tolerate bullying.

I think you're quite right BP, they don't tolerate it, they positively encourage it.

I can't believe that the DOM, Mr Merchant, has been promoted to acting DSM - well, I can really, that's Royal Mail for you. They can say whatever they like about not tolerating bullying and harassment but, when they reward managers in this way, they send out their real message -

they don't care how their employees are treated

What happened to a mutual trust and respect between employer and employee? Shame on all bullying Royal Mail management