Gross misconduct for seatbelt plugged in behind seat

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Of course its incredibly silly however I dont see what grounds RM have here to conduct somebody?

Royal Mail don't have to have any "grounds" (by which I think you mean undeniable evidence) all it has to have is a reasonable suspicion that the event occurred. The law is pretty clear on the level of evidence needed in dismissal cases, in that the dismissal should be considered reasonable by anyone given the situation and knowledge of the dismissing manager of the incident that is available at the point of dismissal.

All the person here needed to say would be "I always fasten the seatbelt in after usage as in my opinion it looks more professional" no proof or driving without a seatbelt merely an empty van with a seatbelt fastened?
However if the person in question was caught driving by a manager with it fastened in different ball game

That might work in a court of law, with the prosecution needing to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and indeed may work in some cases at Royal Mail. However the "if looks more professional" is undermined when they have been LTBs, WTLLs and videos stating that it shouldn't be done.

I hope he doesn't get sacked, but I am afraid offering up alternative explanations that they may use to explain their actions could make their dismissal more likely. My opinion, and its only my opinion, is when caught tell the truth, don't make excuses as you could be just digging a bigger hole.

I was about to be suspended once because of my posting on this site, but I owned up to it, and now Royal Mail know exactly who I am. But because I was honest and upfront I still work for Royal Mail. Now that could be considered a mistake, but heyho I live with the consequences of my decision.

[Momo90210]

Of course its incredibly silly however I dont see what grounds RM have here to conduct somebody?

Royal Mail don't have to have any "grounds" (by which I think you mean undeniable evidence) all it has to have is a reasonable suspicion that the event occurred. The law is pretty clear on the level of evidence needed in dismissal cases, in that the dismissal should be considered reasonable by anyone given the situation and knowledge of the dismissing manager of the incident that is available at the point of dismissal.

All the person here needed to say would be "I always fasten the seatbelt in after usage as in my opinion it looks more professional" no proof or driving without a seatbelt merely an empty van with a seatbelt fastened?
However if the person in question was caught driving by a manager with it fastened in different ball game

That might work in a court of law, with the prosecution needing to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and indeed may work in some cases at Royal Mail. However the "if looks more professional" is undermined when they have been LTBs, WTLLs and videos stating that it shouldn't be done.

I hope he doesn't get sacked, but I am afraid offering up alternative explanations that they may use to explain their actions could make their dismissal more likely. My opinion, and its only my opinion, is when caught tell the truth, don't make excuses as you could be just digging a bigger hole.

I was about to be suspended once because of my posting on this site, but I owned up to it, and now Royal Mail know exactly who I am. But because I was honest and upfront I still work for Royal Mail. Now that could be considered a mistake, but heyho I live with the consequences of my decision.

I agree that honesty is the best policy ive seen too many people dismissed for being dishonest in conducts. We dont know the in's and outs of the case lets hope he does not get sacked but what a silly silly thing to do (if he has done it)

[SpacePhoenix]

Is it now time for cameras to be installed in the cabs of all RM vehicles? In cases like this there'd be proof one way or the other as to if the seatbelt has been used properly

[Momo90210]

Is it now time for cameras to be installed in the cabs of all RM vehicles? In cases like this there'd be proof one way or the other as to if the seatbelt has been used properly

The main issue with that would be how far would it go. Would they get cameras with microphones and listen in to private converasations etc? CWU would block it being used for conduct like with trimble and pda actuals.

Not that i'm paranoid or anything

[SpacePhoenix]

Is it now time for cameras to be installed in the cabs of all RM vehicles? In cases like this there'd be proof one way or the other as to if the seatbelt has been used properly

The main issue with that would be how far would it go. Would they get cameras with microphones and listen in to private converasations etc? CWU would block it being used for conduct like with trimble and pda actuals.

Not that i'm paranoid or anything

How would a camera without a microphone in a vehicle cab being used for a conduct case be any different from a camera without a microphone in a RM office being used for a conduct case?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Is it now time for cameras to be installed in the cabs of all RM vehicles? In cases like this there'd be proof one way or the other as to if the seatbelt has been used properly

The main issue with that would be how far would it go. Would they get cameras with microphones and listen in to private converasations etc? CWU would block it being used for conduct like with trimble and pda actuals.

Not that i'm paranoid or anything

That's the circle that RM and the CWU would have to square.

Do we accept video and/or audio recordings to protect against wrongful dismissal.

or

Do we reject video and audio/or recording because of possible disciplinary action over inadvertent comments or abusive language?



As they say.................... You decide.

[scoobydo79]

Check mileage and signatures in book. If His is last He is in s**t and so He should be.

[rubberbond]

The onus is clearly on proving who plugged the seatbelt in.

All they have to do is check the mileage against the last recorded driver who signed for the van ,if the numbers match , there’s your answer.
You never know who’s swimming naked until the tide goes out.

[ssdd]

The onus is clearly on proving who plugged the seatbelt in.

All they have to do is check the mileage against the last recorded driver who signed for the van ,if the numbers match , there’s your answer.
You never know who’s swimming naked until the tide goes out.

Not necessarily. Dindin raised a possible scenario above, in that it could be someone trying to frame him; perhaps knowing in advance that the audit was coming. It would really depend on the reaction of the Postie, upon him and the Auditor both discovering this. Did he expressly deny that he did it, at the time of discovery? From the info we have, it sounds like maybe he didn't. In which case he's in for a dressing down, or worse.

[woofwoof]

Surely you thought it was faulty so checked it when you got out the van and forgot to release it when you pulled it

[ssdd]

Surely you thought it was faulty so checked it when you got out the van and forgot to release it when you pulled it

From what we're reading, though, it sounds like the seatbelt was behind the seat...

[postslippete]

Check mileage and signatures in book. If His is last He is in s**t and so He should be.

Unless the logbook has gone missing or not been filled in that day, you're probably right


What an insane thing to do driving with the seatbelt plugged in behind the seat just so you don't hear the beeping noise reminding you to put the damn thing on that will save your life!!

[TopperGas]

Check mileage and signatures in book. If His is last He is in s**t and so He should be.

Unless the logbook has gone missing or not been filled in that day, you're probably right


What an insane thing to do driving with the seatbelt plugged in behind the seat just so you don't hear the beeping noise reminding you to put the damn thing on that will save your life!!

i thought filling in log books was a thing of the past and now everybody has to use the Vehicle Check app? I'd imagine it's common knowledge the driver does this regularly, so I doubt coming up with an excuse is going to help him at the conduct hearing.

[crimson king]

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.

[rubberbond]

I don’t think anyone is setting out here to incriminate anyone , but in a list of reasonable excuses , “ oh yeah it was plugged in and wrapped behind my seat because I was testing it”, really? So why not test it to your front as it’s designed to be worn, it won’t save your life wrapped around the back of the seat. I’m no management defender and don’t wish to condemn anyone , but come on, that’s not a reasonable explanation, there is no excuse other than the ones expressed in the legislation for not wearing a seat belt correctly.