Exactly this. I would consider I had done a poor job of representation if I didn't get this thrown out before even going down the conduct route.
Pretty damning to see other posties looking to hang a colleague on such flimsy bollocks. Who's to say they didn't click it in to check it was operating properly before signing out on the vehicle checks and simply left it in? Who's to say vindictive management haven't staged it for someone whose face doesn't fit? There is a myriad of reasons, undoubtedly ranging from dubious to likely, for why that seatbelt was left clicked in.
I'd be looking for definitive proof that the OPG had been seen driving without a seat belt, not "well, we all know what's going on here really, don't we?" bullshit.
Stern word, don't do it again (If you have been doing it) and job done. Buy your rep a pint.
At last, a bit of common sense. As said, sad to see how many fully expect to see some poor sod sacked over such nonsense.
I know it goes on, and I shake my head at those who do it.
However I too am wary of being found guilty with zero proof - here on a morning if you’re sent out early with packets you can sometimes have 6 or 7 vans to move first, that’s 6 or 7 opportunities to try and get someone in bother if you hold a grudge. Likewise management sometimes have to move vans, there’s so many chances for someone to frame you. Was there not someone on here who had 2 full pouches of mail planted in the back of his van after he’d returned from delivery?
The day is gonna come when we’re all gonna have to testify.
I'm afraid my posts on this were based on management using actual evidence such as logbook & mileage.....I didn't imagine for one minute that there's the possibility of a work "colleague" or manager trying to frame you. But being mindful of some of the underminded things I have seen over the years - yes it is well worth considering!
are you for real? Sufficient evidence? A vehicle clipped back in? Sufficient evidence would be cctv footage or 2 managers out doing a smat and visibly seeing the person with no belt. Can tell you lot are not reps you have given the person guilty without things such as "he might have ocd and always clips it back in"
Not that I agree btw and chances are they are guilty but offering a different viewpoint and remember not everyone in Ibiza does class A drugs just because its common practice
Exactly this. I would consider I had done a poor job of representation if I didn't get this thrown out before even going down the conduct route.
Pretty damning to see other posties looking to hang a colleague on such flimsy bollocks. Who's to say they didn't click it in to check it was operating properly before signing out on the vehicle checks and simply left it in? Who's to say vindictive management haven't staged it for someone whose face doesn't fit? There is a myriad of reasons, undoubtedly ranging from dubious to likely, for why that seatbelt was left clicked in.
I'd be looking for definitive proof that the OPG had been seen driving without a seat belt, not "well, we all know what's going on here really, don't we?" bullshit.
Stern word, don't do it again (If you have been doing it) and job done. Buy your rep a pint.
Theres a high probability the postie has done what everyone thinks hes done However probably simply will not cut it at an appeal and definitely not at a tribunal. Far too many potential scenarios for this to go to conduct with absolutely zero evidence and we all know in employment law its beyond reasonable doubt but in this particular case there is nothing of substance whatsoever
I would have thought that anyone using this practice would have the common sense to simply unclick the bloody thing when they left the vehicle to knock off?
I feel that sometimes some Posties are their own worst enemy, why make it easy for management to try and conduct code you?
Like all Wage Slaves, he had two crosses to bear: The people he worked for and the people he worked with! (Stephen Vizinczey.)
I would have thought that anyone using this practice would have the common sense to simply unclick the bloody thing when they left the vehicle to knock off?
I feel that sometimes some Posties are their own worst enemy, why make it easy for management to try and conduct code you?
They probably do, but like all of us.....we all forget to do things sometimes and it is just bloody bad luck that it was, in this case, an external auditor who will not know the postie concerned from Adam and will feel right chuffed with himself that he can report back to his bosses what he found. Brownie points for him/her!
They can't do anything unless the Postie admits to driving without the seatbelt on. Otherwise there is no proof he or she has driven without the seatbelt on. For sure it looks bad, but unless the Postie was caught not wearing it, or admits guilt, they can't punish them. But I would not be surprised if that Postie is watched closely in future.
I'm not sure how anyone would get away with this.
My van, I used it, I am the only one that used it, I finished my duty, locked the van up and handed the keys, pda, etc back, job done.
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been. My BFF Clash The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
They can't do anything unless the Postie admits to driving without the seatbelt on. Otherwise there is no proof he or she has driven without the seatbelt on. For sure it looks bad, but unless the Postie was caught not wearing it, or admits guilt, they can't punish them. But I would not be surprised if that Postie is watched closely in future.
Yes, they can. Should they be able to - No and it will be an injustice.
But it is also dangerous to say that an Employment Tribunal/Dismissal process needs evidence like a trial in a Crown or Magistrates court (and equivalents) - they don't.
A disciplinary, ET or dismissal review by a manager does not need incontrovertible evidence or a confession. All they need to do is to come to a reasonable conclusion given the details of the case known at the time of making the decision. There is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in an ET is quite fluid. https://www.peninsulagrouplimited.com/t ... -of-proof/
When it comes to burden of proof, employment law disputes require an employee to prove there are facts from which a tribunal can decide in their favour, in the absence of any contradictory evidence.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
They can't do anything unless the Postie admits to driving without the seatbelt on. Otherwise there is no proof he or she has driven without the seatbelt on. For sure it looks bad, but unless the Postie was caught not wearing it, or admits guilt, they can't punish them. But I would not be surprised if that Postie is watched closely in future.
Yes, they can. Should they be able to - No and it will be an injustice.
But it is also dangerous to say that an Employment Tribunal/Dismissal process needs evidence like a trial in a Crown or Magistrates court (and equivalents) - they don't.
A disciplinary, ET or dismissal review by a manager does not need incontrovertible evidence or a confession. All they need to do is to come to a reasonable conclusion given the details of the case known at the time of making the decision. There is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in an ET is quite fluid. https://www.peninsulagrouplimited.com/t ... -of-proof/
When it comes to burden of proof, employment law disputes require an employee to prove there are facts from which a tribunal can decide in their favour, in the absence of any contradictory evidence.
Although you are correct in terms of not needing evidence like a crown prosecution in this particular case RM's position would be based on merely an assumption on what the postie has done which would not stand up as there is too much doubt
This particular case though all depends on what the postie in question has done in terms of accepting and owning up or have they denied it with a valid reasonable excuse.
However probably simply will not cut it at an appeal and definitely not at a tribunal. Far too many potential scenarios for this to go to conduct with absolutely zero evidence and we all know in employment law its beyond reasonable doubt but in this particular case there is nothing of substance whatsoever
