under estimating handbacks=wilful delay?

[daveyeff]

my mate got his date for the hearing. the dom has said ''you failed to complete you,re delivery by telling the manager you would not have time to do you,re lapsing (94 letters to 70 delivery points) yet you finished early'', he is actually blatantly trying to stitch him up. the dom said he would cover the lapsing as long as they concentrated on their packets. he is making out he ''knew'' he would be finished early. also there are 2 of them on the job, yet no action was taken on the other lad(not that there should be) plus the manager taking the hearing is the doms mate. i hope the union are up to scratch with this. it is a complete and utter stitch.

[Himaggen]

If I was his Manager I'd certainly consider taking action against him too.

To state that they didn't have sufficient time to undertake the lapsing then leave work early is simply not acceptable behaviour. Both partners should have been capable of delivering 35 delivery points each in fifteen minutes.

I fully understand that it is difficult to give an accurate delivery span before going out. However as soon as they were aware that they could complete with time to spare then they should have either informed their Manager or at the very least returned to the office to offer their services for that remaining time.

[daveyeff]

you are so wrong, that is what the manager is saying, there is actually 141 drops. the manager said he would get their packets done the previous day,,he did not. subsequently they then had double packets. so they told the manager they would struggle to get the lapsing done, so the manager told them he would cover the lapsing. as it turned out, they got rid of ALL their packets (62 IN ALL) if they had of despatched maybe 10 or 12 it would of put them about 15mins over their time. it is vertually impossible to predict a timescale with packets and especially BEFORE going out on duty. he is charging him with wilful delay but not his driver?? where is the delay. they underestimated. even if they had took the lapsing, it is about 5/6 mins drive away so that on top of delivery of the lapsing, then back to the office puts them over their time. he is also fabricating the story saying the assistant dom took two extra loops off them when he did not. its a conjured up charge that is way way beyond the facts.

[Himaggen]

I may be wrong with the numbers, (you didn't suggest it was 70 each), however the fact that they were aware that they had time to spare and neither informed nor returned is frankly unacceptable.

[daveyeff]

I may be wrong with the numbers, (you didn't suggest it was 70 each), however the fact that they were aware that they had time to spare and neither informed nor returned is frankly unacceptable.

have you read this thread properly?? i did not say NEITHER informed or returned. the driver RETURNED. and they were NOT aware they had time, this was mentioned to the dom BEFORE starting delivery. they were both under the impression that they would not have time. this is when the dom told them HE would get the lapsing covered. the fact that they put their last letter in 15min ahead of time would not have made the slightest difference. the time they took to get back to the office only left 10mins anyway. you are told by management that if you take it out, it MUST NOT be brought back, this is why they said they would struggle to get it done. which is totally ACCEPTABLE. the fact that the dom has now fabricated a story involving the assistant dom (who wasnt involved) is a clear indication of how low they are prepared to stoop to get people out on jumped up charges. dont bring yourself down to their level.!!

[hantsman]

my mate got his date for the hearing. the dom has said ''you failed to complete you,re delivery by telling the manager you would not have time to do you,re lapsing (94 letters to 70 delivery points) yet you finished early'', he is actually blatantly trying to stitch him up. the dom said he would cover the lapsing as long as they concentrated on their packets. he is making out he ''knew'' he would be finished early. also there are 2 of them on the job, yet no action was taken on the other lad(not that there should be) plus the manager taking the hearing is the doms mate. i hope the union are up to scratch with this. it is a complete and utter stitch.

Get the manager changed who is doing the meeting, it is possible.

[Himaggen]

however the fact that they were aware that they had time to spare and neither informed nor returned is frankly unacceptable.

have you read this thread properly?? i did not say NEITHER informed or returned. the driver RETURNED. and they were NOT aware they had time

Firstly I am fully aware of the story, secondly you read the meaning of 'neither' incorrectly.

You told us that the driver returned to the office with fifteen minutes left and had already dropped their partner off at the station prior to that.

At some point with greater than fifteen minutes plus the dropping off time both partners were aware that they would be completed prior to their finishing time. If they have informed their Manager that they would be unlikely to complete then it is completely unacceptable behaviour to go home with time left to spare without speaking to the Manager again. No amount of 'other circumstances' or Manager collaboration will water down that fact.

[daveyeff]

however the fact that they were aware that they had time to spare and neither informed nor returned is frankly unacceptable.

have you read this thread properly?? i did not say NEITHER informed or returned. the driver RETURNED. and they were NOT aware they had time

Firstly I am fully aware of the story, secondly you read the meaning of 'neither' incorrectly.

You told us that the driver returned to the office with fifteen minutes left and had already dropped their partner off at the station prior to that.

At some point with greater than fifteen minutes plus the dropping off time both partners were aware that they would be completed prior to their finishing time. If they have informed their Manager that they would be unlikely to complete then it is completely unacceptable behaviour to go home with time left to spare without speaking to the Manager again. No amount of 'other circumstances' or Manager collaboration will water down that fact.

no you are wrong. the manager was to blame in the first place for not covering the packets that he said he would, which is the whole reason for the debacle anyway. they both put their last letter in with 15mins to go. even if the other lad had of went back to the office with ther driver they only had 10mins left to go when arriving back at the office. if they had of took the lapsing, then instead of going back to the office the would lhave entailed 5/6 mins to get to the first lapsing point (its in a different area) then 15 mins delivery then 5 mins back to the office taking them over. the manager PRIOR to them going out on delivery told them to ''complete the packets, and i,ll get the lapsing covered''. this was witnessed by the rep who by the way reckons they dont have a case to answer. the dom has since changed HIS tune trying to get the lad(both of them now) sacked. which is completely UNACCEPTABLE.

[Himaggen]

The facts cannot be changed.

The Manager is responsible to allocate work, by not contacting that Manager before going home, prior to official finish time, there was no way of knowing if there was any work for them to do.

[daveyeff]

well as you said in one of the other posts, ''its not wilfull delay''. unacceptable?? probably not, its done nationwide. its cack handed as fish said. the manager is a bellend. and as i also said,,,we used to have job and finish up until recently. the suspended lad has said he was still under the impression it was job and knock. quite believeable as he was off on leave when it was stopped. well,,, not stopped, they still allow job and knock if you,ve done the lapsing. so, everything will be fine if they keep there jobs. and JUSTIFIED.

[Himaggen]

Correct, as I stated earlier in this thread it is not wilful delay and as such your colleague should, with the aid of their CWU representative, win on that charge.

[flaminmoses]

the suspended lad got his rejjie letter today,,,,,the doms passed it up,,what a surprise. obviously looking to have him sacked and wipe out another 40 hours and his livelyhood at the same time. there is now a total of 7 cases of wilful delay ongoing. he,s lost the frigging plot this bloke.

would luv to know what area of the country where this is going on .A similar sort of thing happened to me over 2 years ago they eventually moved all management involved. They are so corrupt its unbelievable.I always said the DOM had lost the plot or they get paid a lot more BONUS than we think for reducing hours.I left office 10 mins early during the nice weather of Jan 2010 having received a text from my wife asking if i could take her to see her terminally ill Mother.Needless to say i was charged with WILFUL DELAY .The weather the worst in 30 years ,and the fact my mother in law was dying was not sufficient mitigation (she passed away)god rest her 4 days later.And the appeals manager claimed it was convenient i had somewhere to be and that i had pre arranged it .How distasteful and it still is and if they think its over it never will be untill justice is done.

im a carer and they tried this trick on me.
they used the fact i was a carer to say that i didnt want to complete (even though my knee had gone again lol)

the judge told em this part of the charge should not have even been unexcused delay!!!

[daveyeff]

the rep said yesterday he heard the dom tell the lino ''he would have to retract his statement'', but he was not sure if he was on about the lad who is suspended. i said it must be,,!! how many fabricated statements has he put in for christ sake. he,s got to be on about my mate.,,,,anyways, today i get a call off the rep, he says tell you,re mate to get back to work on monday, the branch has got him his job back. YEEEEESSSS . obviously the false statement has cast any credibility about this case into serious doubt which makes the whole charge untenable. but it just goes to show that this management team will try anything to get longtermers out. jumped up charges, fabricating statements, distorting the facts. ive asked if their will be any punishment towards management for this, only to be told ''well, probably, but WE wont witness it'' very happy for my mate but pissed off that THEY wont get their come uppance. 5 nil to the workforce.(thats how many he,s tried to sack) YIPPEE

[daveyeff]

got another phone message tonight, saying they,ve dropped ALL the charges on ALL other staff. great news but what a fekn shambles this has been this past month. i hope this management team are moved on now. surely. saying that though, they then become some other offices problem.

[Lincox]

Well Davey, if you have the guts to stand up and face these lying bstrds, and if everyone had the same resilience as your members, then this company would not be getting away with half it does at the moment.