No seat belt

[aiden01]

I'm sure that you had your seatbelt on all the time but just as you passed into the DO/DEPOT, you just unclipped just a second before you were seen. You aren't under the road traffic act in private places. I know it's RM policy to always wear your seatbelt but if they get all overheated about it, then use all the technicalities at your disposal of your job is on the line. And remember to ALWAYS do the job properly, as they say they want in everything, that's seatbelts, meal breaks, lapsing(only if you've time), cutting off, going to neighbours ect ect. There's more than one way to skin a cat. What happened to you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. Yes you should ALWAYS wear your seatbelt but how many times have we all pressed the release button a second or two before the lorry/van comes to a halt. Good luck.

Best advice I've seen in this thread.

"Just popped the seat belt as I seen ya boss!"

Although, reading the op, it sounds like the horse might have bolted in this case.

Good luck anyway, hope it works out okay.

Best advice don't tell lies

[Ren Hoëk]

Even ACAS don't mention "evidence" https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/ ... isconduct/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What will the tribunal consider?
The tribunal can’t find you were unfairly dismissed just because they believe your account of what happened. Before deciding the outcome of the claim for dismissal for misconduct, the tribunal will look at the following legal tests and apply them to your claim. They will want to know:

whether your employer genuinely believed you were guilty of misconduct
was there a proper investigation into what happened?
did your employer have reasonable grounds to think you were guilty?
would your dismissal be considered a reasonable response to the misconduct?

Ok. Il let you believe that a manager and RM could just sack someone because they "believed" you didn't have a seat belt on. No evidence. Just their word against yours. They would come unstuck.

they sacked a bloke in Scotland 2 or 3 years back. for theft. he was searched on his delivery by the I.B. they found nothing. searched his person...his locker...his home....they found NOTHING. he was suspended then sacked. the tribunal ordered RM to give him his job back. RM appealed and went to tribunal again. they LOST again and were ordered to re-instate him. NO was their reply. he lost his job with NO evidence. he was compensated eventually with an undisclosed amount but he STILL lost his job.

he was compensated eventually with an undisclosed amount but he STILL lost his job.

It sounds like he was offered a pay off and took it. He didn't lose his job. He walked with compo.

Sorry for language but do you not f***ing listen read the post and read it again he lost lost his job for doing f**k all wrong. TRIBUNAL SAID HE SHOULD BE REINSTATED WHAT POINT ARE YOU MISSING FFS

Calm down petal. Iv read the post quite fine thankyou. I also have ability of reading comprehension. He won his tribunal. Twice! He was given compensation which suggest he was going to sue them and RM knew he would win. So they have paid him off and it was his decision to take it and walk. RM would not have paid him anything if that wasn't the case. The fact it was undisclosed suggest an out of court settlement.

The very fact he won his tribunal in the face of no evidence proves my point and would suspect RM may be more careful in the future to avoid another incident like this. Else they will just end up having to pay more compo.

[Ren Hoëk]

I'm sure that you had your seatbelt on all the time but just as you passed into the DO/DEPOT, you just unclipped just a second before you were seen. You aren't under the road traffic act in private places. I know it's RM policy to always wear your seatbelt but if they get all overheated about it, then use all the technicalities at your disposal of your job is on the line. And remember to ALWAYS do the job properly, as they say they want in everything, that's seatbelts, meal breaks, lapsing(only if you've time), cutting off, going to neighbours ect ect. There's more than one way to skin a cat. What happened to you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. Yes you should ALWAYS wear your seatbelt but how many times have we all pressed the release button a second or two before the lorry/van comes to a halt. Good luck.

Best advice I've seen in this thread.

"Just popped the seat belt as I seen ya boss!"

Although, reading the op, it sounds like the horse might have bolted in this case.

Good luck anyway, hope it works out okay.

Best advice don't tell lies

I mean. Quite obviously not in this case. If this person had just said this, this thread wouldn't exist. Instead, He told the truth and is now facing the sack.

[Ciderboy1957]

Suspended with pay , pending conduct

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Even ACAS don't mention "evidence" https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/ ... isconduct/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What will the tribunal consider?
The tribunal can’t find you were unfairly dismissed just because they believe your account of what happened. Before deciding the outcome of the claim for dismissal for misconduct, the tribunal will look at the following legal tests and apply them to your claim. They will want to know:

whether your employer genuinely believed you were guilty of misconduct
was there a proper investigation into what happened?
did your employer have reasonable grounds to think you were guilty?
would your dismissal be considered a reasonable response to the misconduct?

Ok. Il let you believe that a manager and RM could just sack someone because they "believed" you didn't have a seat belt on. No evidence. Just their word against yours. They would come unstuck.

Any chance of proving this assertion as experiences both on here and in the real world would disagree with you?

I think what you are saying is dangerous and I will keep saying so until evidence proves otherwise.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Even ACAS don't mention "evidence" https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/ ... isconduct/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What will the tribunal consider?
The tribunal can’t find you were unfairly dismissed just because they believe your account of what happened. Before deciding the outcome of the claim for dismissal for misconduct, the tribunal will look at the following legal tests and apply them to your claim. They will want to know:

whether your employer genuinely believed you were guilty of misconduct
was there a proper investigation into what happened?
did your employer have reasonable grounds to think you were guilty?
would your dismissal be considered a reasonable response to the misconduct?

Ok. Il let you believe that a manager and RM could just sack someone because they "believed" you didn't have a seat belt on. No evidence. Just their word against yours. They would come unstuck.

they sacked a bloke in Scotland 2 or 3 years back. for theft. he was searched on his delivery by the I.B. they found nothing. searched his person...his locker...his home....they found NOTHING. he was suspended then sacked. the tribunal ordered RM to give him his job back. RM appealed and went to tribunal again. they LOST again and were ordered to re-instate him. NO was their reply. he lost his job with NO evidence. he was compensated eventually with an undisclosed amount but he STILL lost his job.

he was compensated eventually with an undisclosed amount but he STILL lost his job.

It sounds like he was offered a pay off and took it. He didn't lose his job. He walked with compo.

The story is on here link to the threads below, but basically the story is he was unfairly sacked, the tribunal ordered him to be reinstated twice, Royal Mail then paid compensation for not reinstating him.


https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 18&t=73607" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Executive approves Scots strike vote

https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 18&t=72601" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Postman campaigns to change the law in a bid to get his job back

https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 18&t=74780" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Lesley Riddoch: Employment tribunals need reform

https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 18&t=76959" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Sacked Fife postman David Mitchell seals deal with Royal Mail

[Ren Hoëk]

Even ACAS don't mention "evidence" https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/ ... isconduct/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What will the tribunal consider?
The tribunal can’t find you were unfairly dismissed just because they believe your account of what happened. Before deciding the outcome of the claim for dismissal for misconduct, the tribunal will look at the following legal tests and apply them to your claim. They will want to know:

whether your employer genuinely believed you were guilty of misconduct
was there a proper investigation into what happened?
did your employer have reasonable grounds to think you were guilty?
would your dismissal be considered a reasonable response to the misconduct?

Ok. Il let you believe that a manager and RM could just sack someone because they "believed" you didn't have a seat belt on. No evidence. Just their word against yours. They would come unstuck.

Any chance of proving this assertion as experiences both on here and in the real world would disagree with you?

I think what you are saying is dangerous and I will keep saying so until evidence proves otherwise.

It's quite astonishing that you are asking me for evidence and you yourself then link me to it. Proving that RM cant just sack somebody with no evidence. It looks like it caused a right mess and in the end RM ended up having to pay the man £56,000!

Im not telling anybody they should not wear a belt. But if all they had done is deny it. Suggest they must have not seen them take their belt off. This person would not be facing the sack. If RM then wanted to proceed then the above case PROVES they would need evidence!

[clashcityrocker]

..... then the above case PROVES they would need evidence!

No it doesn't. It shows they need reasonable belief and they need to follow their own correct procedures.
Had a manager said they saw the postman take the package/money or whatever they had planted then even if they had not subsequently found it, he would probably not have succeeded at a tribunal.
They knew things were being stolen in the office. They couldn't show they had strong enough grounds to reasonably believe it was Mr Mitchell.
An employment tribunal is not a court of law. There aren't any wigs and QCs and exhibit A m'lud.

In the seat belt case the manager saw him. They don't then need to set up a complex surveillance operation to try and catch him again with PROOF.
The manager saw him. End of.
Acting like a child who denies having eaten the chocolate when the stuff is smeared around their chops isn't going to help.
And encouraging people to act like children can be positively dangerous.

[Ren Hoëk]

..... then the above case PROVES they would need evidence!

No it doesn't. It shows they need reasonable belief and they need to follow their own correct procedures.
Had a manager said they saw the postman take the package/money or whatever they had planted then even if they had not subsequently found it, he would probably not have succeeded at a tribunal.
They knew things were being stolen in the office. They couldn't show they had strong enough grounds to reasonably believe it was Mr Mitchell.
An employment tribunal is not a court of law. There aren't any wigs and QCs and exhibit A m'lud.

In the seat belt case the manager saw him. They don't then need to set up a complex surveillance operation to try and catch him again with PROOF.
The manager saw him. End of.
Acting like a child who denies having eaten the chocolate when the stuff is smeared around their chops isn't going to help.
And encouraging people to act like children can be positively dangerous.

You are getting buried in semantics.

They couldn't show they had strong enough grounds to reasonably believe it was Mr Mitchell.

Because.They. Had.No.Evidence.To.Prove.It.Was.Him.

Im afraid they would need evidence. Either from witnesses or like you suggest cameras. The poster has already said he has had issues with his manager in the past. There could quite easily be reasonable belief that he is the victim of B+H.

I will reiterate again. If he made the quickest of remarks along the lines of the manager not having seen him take his belt off. He would now not be currently suspended with pay. But, He didnt. He admitted it. So he's just going to have to go through the motions now. In this case, being honest was the most "dangerous" thing.

[clashcityrocker]

You are getting buried in semantics.

For the purposes of the jury could you please state how many members you have represented facing dismissal.
And could you please tell us how many employment tribunals you have attended in a personal or professional capacity.

Because it would appear that the learned counsel for the defence is talking through his hat.

[Murdoch]

This thread makes me want to quit Royal Mail.

Managers seriously going out of their way to try and get a person sacked that's been with the company for 38 years. When a polite word and caution would have sufficed.

Pathetic.

[clashcityrocker]

There could quite easily be reasonable belief that he is the victim of B+H.

But how would you PROVE that as "reasonable belief" doesn't cut it in your book?
You would need a warrant to install listening devices in the manager's office and to "eavesdrop" on their electronic communications.
You would have to subpoena their colleagues to testify that their was a conspiracy to fabricate evidence against the accused.
That would be a tall order for a unit rep. Maybe he would just have to pass the matter to the Area Rep then?

In the world of the grown ups, when you have done wrong you have to hold your hands up and take responsibility for your actions.
I am glad the OP did that. It might be the one thing that saves his job. It demonstrates a level of maturity and honesty lacking in so many people today.
It shows EVIDENCE of moral fibre.
That is something to be applauded.

[Murdoch]

In the world of the grown ups, when you have done wrong you have to hold your hands up and take responsibility for your actions.
I am glad the OP did that. It might be the one thing that saves his job. It demonstrates a level of maturity and honesty lacking in so many people today.
It shows EVIDENCE of moral fibre.
That is something to be applauded.

Your argument would only carry any weight if this mistake was handled in a mature way by management.

It's truly pathetic to treat loyal and hard working staff in this manner, threatening a long serving member of staff with the sack, for forgetting to put on his seatbelt is absolutely pathetic.

If you're trying to create a working environment where "honesty" and "moral fibre" are traits you wish to promote. This is not how it's done.

Forget about maturity, this is about basic human decency, and understanding we're human not robots.

[Ciderboy1957]

Appreciate all advice and comments gents . There is history between me and management , conduct clear as I said despite numerous erroneous charges so I think they are attempting to profile me and see this has an opportunity to go for the " kill " so to speak

[Ren Hoëk]

There could quite easily be reasonable belief that he is the victim of B+H.

But how would you PROVE that as "reasonable belief" doesn't cut it in your book?
You would need a warrant to install listening devices in the manager's office and to "eavesdrop" on their electronic communications.
You would have to subpoena their colleagues to testify that their was a conspiracy to fabricate evidence against the accused.
That would be a tall order for a unit rep. Maybe he would just have to pass the matter to the Area Rep then?

In the world of the grown ups, when you have done wrong you have to hold your hands up and take responsibility for your actions.
I am glad the OP did that. It might be the one thing that saves his job. It demonstrates a level of maturity and honesty lacking in so many people today.
It shows EVIDENCE of moral fibre.
That is something to be applauded.

But how would you PROVE that as "reasonable belief" doesn't cut it in your book?

Exactly. Im glad we agree. Other than creating a weird straw man argument that would mean no B+H case could ever possible be brought against a manager. Which of course we know not to be the case. Any B+H case would need evidence. Testimony. Witnesses. In this mans case the number of historic instances of attempts to conduct him unsuccessfully in the past etc. All things that would be taken into account but they certainly wouldn't be condemned based on an allegation. Reasonable belief would be built up with evidence and an investigation.

If a unit wanted to crack down on seat belts not being used then it would be reasonable to review cctv (If it existed) to use as evidence. Install it if not.

I agree about moral fibre. But we operate in an hostile environment that certainly does not encourage it and quite frankly, in this case, goes against you.

AGAIN and AGAIN. Im not condoning not wearing a seatbelt. In this instance it has gone past the point of being able to deny it. SO AGAIN! The point im making is that in the very first instance, Manager at your window asking wear is your seat belt. "Iv just taken it off boss, Just this very second". A white lie. We all tell them. Hardly murder. But it would have saved this man this mess. In future make sure you wear it as you now know they are gunning for it. If you get court again and again then you only have yourself to blame.

But clashcityrocker. Instead of questioning my credibility and attacking me as a person. How about attack the points im making. That would be the "grown up" thing to do.