IM OFF

[TrueBlueTerrier]

As an addendum I feel I must point out that I don't agree with the suspension and dismissal system within (and without) Royal Mail as I think its unfair. In fact, I think its draconian and punitive.

But in cases like this you only raise false hopes if you don't make it clear exactly what can and can't happen. People certainly shouldn't be saying they need cast iron proof to dismiss him, when quite plainly they don't. Doing so is dangerous not only to the individual, but also to the poster, and anyone else, if their incorrect assertions are not questioned and they themselves are suspended in similar circumstances.

[BarnsleyLackey]

I might be missing some of what you said, but without proof of him doing what he's accused of, he can be sacked with enough hearsay? Honestly, you do sound like someone who knows his onions, but that sounds ropey to me. Whenever anyone is suspected of stealing mail, RM bring in IB for solid proof, before throwing the book. Surely they'd have to do the same here - solid facts, before they wreck a person and risk what comes with getting it wrong.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I might be missing some of what you said, but without proof of him doing what he's accused of, he can be sacked with enough hearsay? Honestly, you do sound like someone who knows his onions, but that sounds ropey to me. Whenever anyone is suspected of stealing mail, RM bring in IB for solid proof, before throwing the book. Surely they'd have to do the same here - solid facts, before they wreck a person and risk what comes with getting it wrong.

No that's why I think its unfair. The burden of proof is on the employer, but the threshold of evidence in an employment issue is a lot less than they need for a trial. In theory, yes hearsay can be used to dismiss someone, but it has to reach that threshold of reasonable. It would unfair if they took the word of an individual over another and that in my opinion would not be considered as a reasonable level of proof. But a few different people saying the same thing, and the manager stating he tried to contact the person on the day concerned, without success, or perhaps a history of being uncontactable when off sick. All of these would/could in the end amount to a reasonable judgement, by a reasonable manager that on the balance of probabilities what was being alleged was true.

The IB, are not concerned in employment matters, but only in legal matters. However, even if they don't have enough evidence for a trial, they may still be able to give the manager enough evidence for him to make a reasonable decision to sack someone. I am sure we have all heard or seen of posties going into a meeting with the manager, and that's the last you have seen of them. In some cases, but not all, that's undoubtedly down to the manager saying "We know what you've been doing. Now are you resigning or shall we sack you".

[General Mannerheim]

These turds like to trot out the reasonable belief bolloxs when they can't prove something and they sometimes get away with it!
But in this case they sound like they are on a dodgy wicket.
I'm going off how the first post was written but it sounds like he wasn't given the facts about what he was accused off before he went into the office!
Also the managers in question might in their corrupt way think that hauling somebody in without representation or the full facts behind any accusations and then questions him is a valid opportunity to comment but others would say that without the full facts put before him how can you make a valid defence?

It also sounds like it was `prejudged` before he got into work but that would be up to a good rep to argue the toss and we all know there isn't many of them around these days. who don't rollover and defend the members interest properly.

[cuddyhung]

i got hauled in for similar a few years ago ,, i had asked for light duties because of a broken toe or an indoor job etc .. got told there was nothing ,, i would have to go off sick ,, i refused , saying i was there to work,, got informed my pay would be stopped if i didnt go sick because i couldnt do my job properly ,, i had a sick note from doctor declaring i could work but no walking or standing or driving for long periods ,, so i went on the sick ,, i went to my other job ,, and worked there full time for the 5 weeks i was off ,, i got queried about this when i went back ,, and said yes i was working there ,, they gave me a job where i could sit down and not aggravate my injury ,, you wouldn't ,, they did ,, end off ,, never heard another thing about it ,,when i was off i had managers driving by the premises i was workn in spying on me to see if i was at my other job ,, i sat there and waved at them

[Postie45]

thats similar but not the same, you have a clear reason why you could work at the other job and tried to come into work at RM too but were refused. The OP is talking about being sick to the point where he isnt able to work at all and has been "seen" working elsewhere.

[kevo35]

I have handed my notice in today. Finally an end to RM.

[Sidley]

Sure you can't take some of the bastards with you?

Hope things work out.
S.

[postypie]

I have handed my notice in today. Finally an end to RM.

why?

[bustedflush]

I have handed my notice in today. Finally an end to RM.

why?

Exactly. If he is convinced he wasn't guilty of the allegations, and can prove himself innocent (yes, unlike in a criminal trial..) then he would be better off taking full pay while suspended and then being returned to work. If he leaves he loses far more, including shares (as they are still worth a few pence) although he has better employment credentials than he would being fired.

[k979aaa]

I have handed my notice in today. Finally an end to RM.

why?

Maybe had enough of being treated like s**t and he had the balls to make a decision not to be treated so in the future it does happen some have principles over money grabbing twats!.

[feduppostie]

or maybe he was working elsewhere?

he never actually denied it did he?

If I had been accused of it and knew I hadn't done it no way would I have resigned

[Postie45]

no way of knowing, but it does seem a rash decision

Maybe had enough of being treated like s**t and he had the balls to make a decision not to be treated so in the future it does happen some have principles over money grabbing twats!.

If he felt badly treated then he could have stood for these principles and taken then to an industrial tribunal. If you just leave then you havent stood for your principles at all, youve allowed yourself to be bullied and misrepresented.

[dvbuk55]

no way of knowing, but it does seem a rash decision

Maybe had enough of being treated like s**t and he had the balls to make a decision not to be treated so in the future it does happen some have principles over money grabbing twats!.

If he felt badly treated then he could have stood for these principles and taken then to an industrial tribunal. If you just leave then you havent stood for your principles at all, youve allowed yourself to be bullied and misrepresented.

There's also the stigma of "s**t sticks" - he was accused, didn't deny it satisfactorily, presumed the burden of proof was in fact less compelling than was actually required and decided to bale. Still leaves a sour taste though that on the word of someone he was actually suspended - sounds like the pre-war days in Berlin or cast a stone and see the ripples spread.