Fact-finding

[fishtank]

Toilet facilities and meal relief won't cut it, neither excuses the OPG from being where he shouldn't be when he shouldn't be in a company vehicle.

Either he has a legitimate reason that will hold water in which case he should use this at any conduct meeting or he hasn't and has been caught doing something he knew from past experience would end badly in which case I would start playing the genuine contrition card, If your defence is on shaky legs it's usually a bad idea to start jumping up and down on them.

[gluteus maximus]

Fishtank, might i ask why toilet facilities will not cover it?? That is covered under:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations

Your van in duty time will be your designated work place


Sanitary conveniences – suitable and sufficient toilets shall be provided at readily accessible places. They must be well ventilated and lit and kept clean.

[fishtank]

Fishtank, might i ask why toilet facilities will not cover it?? That is covered under:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations

Your van in duty time will be your designated work place


Sanitary conveniences – suitable and sufficient toilets shall be provided at readily accessible places. They must be well ventilated and lit and kept clean.

If suitable toilet facilities are not identified on a delivery the position is that the duty holder returns to the delivery office, that would not take him "off route".

[gluteus maximus]

Then why have welfare facilities not been identified in the delivery structure for the employee. That comes under a basic risk assessment, Why return to the office, why not a supermarket, pub etc

Just asking as i really do not know??

[rehabron]

Under the ACAS code of practice there is no requirement to have a rep accompany the employee in a fact finding interview. Allowances should be made though if the employee asks for one but the employer does not have to ask if the employee requires a rep, A fact finding interview is not a formal process under any disciplinary procedure

You receive 48 hours minimum written notice and the right to be accompanied on a formal disciplinary meeting

An informal meeting can in other employment lead straight into a formal for which the employee must be told. Any Employment Tribunal would not be happy though if that was the case. That does not happen in Royal Mail as the business has seperate disciplinary procedures and agreements due to trade union recognition and representation

Rehabron is bang on and is obvious a rep, i take it your are not Hatetheboss???

I believe you are all getting mixed up in the advice I am giving, at no point did I mention it being a legal right to have representation at a fact finding interview, but I am stating that under the guidelines of the conduct code a fact finding is a formal part of the process and anyone has the right to representation.
Returning to " jimbob 5000" original posting which stated that lino asked for a " QUIET CHAT" concerning the location of a vehicle photographed outside its normal designated route and at this point in time " Jimbob 5000" feels that a fact-finding has taken place but no notes have been taken of this meeting and does not come under the formal process and representation is not required.
If the investigation is still on-going in this matter and lino is still in the process of gathering information and once he/she has all the facts before him/her and goes beyond the remedial approach for counselling or the " quiet chat" to nip in the bud the offence then it would progress to a more in depth fact-finding meeting which obviously will be leading to a disciplinary hearing then representation would be beneficial to safeguard the employee.
The reply I gave was to the " quiet chat" and unless this matter escalates I stand by my posting that representation is unnecessary.

See under page 3 - 4.3
Also the diagram page 12 appendix 1

[fishtank]

Then why have welfare facilities not been identified in the delivery structure for the employee. That comes under a basic risk assessment, Why return to the office, why not a supermarket, pub etc

Just asking as i really do not know??

Welfare facilities should have been identified at the duty design stage, these can include supermarkets or other public facilities but if he was travelling to or from those places he wouldn't be "off route", If for whatever reason there are no identified facilities on the delivery route the default position is a return to the office, again he would not be "off route", what you can't do is decide yourself to pick and choose where you go.

As for his meal relief the scheduled 20 mins before departure is his statutory meal relief, the remainder is contractual but it's immaterial, It's improper use of a company vehicle that's the real issue and he needs a legitimate reason for that...or a great deal of luck.

[gluteus maximus]

I see where you are coming from fishtank, i used to be a trade union official before i got my degree. My motto has been always fight for the member, even if he stated he was abducted by alliens as an excuse

I will use every trick and disposal in the book without telling an untruth in his defence, not just capitulate unless he has been found bang to rights as the guilty party.

Maybe that is old fashioned now that Philosophy but it never did me any harm and gave me great personal satisfaction

[hatetheboss]

Under the ACAS code of practice there is no requirement to have a rep accompany the employee in a fact finding interview. Allowances should be made though if the employee asks for one but the employer does not have to ask if the employee requires a rep, A fact finding interview is not a formal process under any disciplinary procedure

You receive 48 hours minimum written notice and the right to be accompanied on a formal disciplinary meeting

An informal meeting can in other employment lead straight into a formal for which the employee must be told. Any Employment Tribunal would not be happy though if that was the case. That does not happen in Royal Mail as the business has seperate disciplinary procedures and agreements due to trade union recognition and representation

Rehabron is bang on and is obvious a rep, i take it your are not Hatetheboss???

I believe you are all getting mixed up in the advice I am giving, at no point did I mention it being a legal right to have representation at a fact finding interview, but I am stating that under the guidelines of the conduct code a fact finding is a formal part of the process and anyone has the right to representation.
Returning to " jimbob 5000" original posting which stated that lino asked for a " QUIET CHAT" concerning the location of a vehicle photographed outside its normal designated route and at this point in time " Jimbob 5000" feels that a fact-finding has taken place but no notes have been taken of this meeting and does not come under the formal process and representation is not required.
If the investigation is still on-going in this matter and lino is still in the process of gathering information and once he/she has all the facts before him/her and goes beyond the remedial approach for counselling or the " quiet chat" to nip in the bud the offence then it would progress to a more in depth fact-finding meeting which obviously will be leading to a disciplinary hearing then representation would be beneficial to safeguard the employee.
The reply I gave was to the " quiet chat" and unless this matter escalates I stand by my posting that representation is unnecessary.

See under page 3 - 4.3
Also the diagram page 12 appendix 1

Then we agree, if you look back at my other posts that is what I have said

[dvbuk55]

I see where you are coming from fishtank, i used to be a trade union official before i got my degree. My motto has been always fight for the member, even if he stated he was abducted by alliens as an excuse

I will use every trick and disposal in the book without telling an untruth in his defence, not just capitulate unless he has been found bang to rights as the guilty party.

Maybe that is old fashioned now that Philosophy but it never did me any harm and gave me great personal satisfaction

Was the degree in prevarication? You would look totally ridiculous trying to defend the indefensible. You can make a case for leniency undoubtedly but you cannot justify wrongdoing even if the flying saucer was on hand

[rehabron]

Under the ACAS code of practice there is no requirement to have a rep accompany the employee in a fact finding interview. Allowances should be made though if the employee asks for one but the employer does not have to ask if the employee requires a rep, A fact finding interview is not a formal process under any disciplinary procedure

You receive 48 hours minimum written notice and the right to be accompanied on a formal disciplinary meeting

An informal meeting can in other employment lead straight into a formal for which the employee must be told. Any Employment Tribunal would not be happy though if that was the case. That does not happen in Royal Mail as the business has seperate disciplinary procedures and agreements due to trade union recognition and representation

Rehabron is bang on and is obvious a rep, i take it your are not Hatetheboss???

I believe you are all getting mixed up in the advice I am giving, at no point did I mention it being a legal right to have representation at a fact finding interview, but I am stating that under the guidelines of the conduct code a fact finding is a formal part of the process and anyone has the right to representation.
Returning to " jimbob 5000" original posting which stated that lino asked for a " QUIET CHAT" concerning the location of a vehicle photographed outside its normal designated route and at this point in time " Jimbob 5000" feels that a fact-finding has taken place but no notes have been taken of this meeting and does not come under the formal process and representation is not required.
If the investigation is still on-going in this matter and lino is still in the process of gathering information and once he/she has all the facts before him/her and goes beyond the remedial approach for counselling or the " quiet chat" to nip in the bud the offence then it would progress to a more in depth fact-finding meeting which obviously will be leading to a disciplinary hearing then representation would be beneficial to safeguard the employee.
The reply I gave was to the " quiet chat" and unless this matter escalates I stand by my posting that representation is unnecessary.

See under page 3 - 4.3
Also the diagram page 12 appendix 1

Then we agree, if you look back at my other posts that is what I have said

No we don't agree your posting in reply to " jimbob5000" was over inflated and was not required in the circumstances that " jimbob5000" described.

[hatetheboss]

Under the ACAS code of practice there is no requirement to have a rep accompany the employee in a fact finding interview. Allowances should be made though if the employee asks for one but the employer does not have to ask if the employee requires a rep, A fact finding interview is not a formal process under any disciplinary procedure

You receive 48 hours minimum written notice and the right to be accompanied on a formal disciplinary meeting

An informal meeting can in other employment lead straight into a formal for which the employee must be told. Any Employment Tribunal would not be happy though if that was the case. That does not happen in Royal Mail as the business has seperate disciplinary procedures and agreements due to trade union recognition and representation

Rehabron is bang on and is obvious a rep, i take it your are not Hatetheboss???

I believe you are all getting mixed up in the advice I am giving, at no point did I mention it being a legal right to have representation at a fact finding interview, but I am stating that under the guidelines of the conduct code a fact finding is a formal part of the process and anyone has the right to representation.
Returning to " jimbob 5000" original posting which stated that lino asked for a " QUIET CHAT" concerning the location of a vehicle photographed outside its normal designated route and at this point in time " Jimbob 5000" feels that a fact-finding has taken place but no notes have been taken of this meeting and does not come under the formal process and representation is not required.
If the investigation is still on-going in this matter and lino is still in the process of gathering information and once he/she has all the facts before him/her and goes beyond the remedial approach for counselling or the " quiet chat" to nip in the bud the offence then it would progress to a more in depth fact-finding meeting which obviously will be leading to a disciplinary hearing then representation would be beneficial to safeguard the employee.
The reply I gave was to the " quiet chat" and unless this matter escalates I stand by my posting that representation is unnecessary.

See under page 3 - 4.3
Also the diagram page 12 appendix 1

Then we agree, if you look back at my other posts that is what I have said

No we don't agree your posting in reply to " jimbob5000" was over inflated and was not required in the circumstances that " jimbob5000" described.

I was not implying that the first chat he had with his manager he should of had representation, I was just informing him that if he was called to a fact finding he should.
Due to the way managers go about things today he believed he may of had a fact finding all I did was explain his rights.

[rehabron]

was not implying that the first chat he had with his manager he should of had representation, I was just informing him that if he was called to a fact finding he should.
Due to the way managers go about things today he believed he may of had a fact finding all I did was explain his rights.

OK your point is well taken and I fully agree with you on your explanation.
I think it would have been better if " jimbob5000" had given more specific details concerning this " quiet chat" with lino and if manger had taken notes at the time as he would have had felt if this incident was going further.
I hope that " jimbob5000" has the courtesy to inform all contributors to this thread what is the outcome of this so called fact finding meeting.

[hatetheboss]

was not implying that the first chat he had with his manager he should of had representation, I was just informing him that if he was called to a fact finding he should.
Due to the way managers go about things today he believed he may of had a fact finding all I did was explain his rights.

OK your point is well taken and I fully agree with you on your explanation.
I think it would have been better if " jimbob5000" had given more specific details concerning this " quiet chat" with lino and if manger had taken notes at the time as he would have had felt if this incident was going further.
I hope that " jimbob5000" has the courtesy to inform all contributors to this thread what is the outcome of this so called fact finding meeting.

[jimbob5000]

I received a letter inviting me to a fact finding, giving 48hrs notice and saying I have the right to be accompanied, etc., so the meeting with my lino the other day must have just been informal, even if it did seem very formal!

[dvbuk55]

I received a letter inviting me to a fact finding, giving 48hrs notice and saying I have the right to be accompanied, etc., so the meeting with my lino the other day must have just been informal, even if it did seem very formal!

Well jimbob looks like they're going for it