'Junk mail' post staff lose cases

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 23 Jul 2007, 17:24

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/nor ... 912170.stm

Two sacked postal workers who won unfair dismissal claims after "junk mail" was found in a tea cupboard have now lost their cases on appeal.

An employment tribunal had ruled Dorothy Stephen be given her job back at Alford sorting office and William Adam be given a new job as postman.

However Royal Mail has now won an appeal against those decisions.

An employment appeal tribunal ruled the mail senders, Capital One, might have been concerned about the service.

Bloody stupid

The original tribunal took the view the mail from Capital One was junk mail and was often unopened or immediately destroyed by the recipient and it was unlikely anyone would complain about a delay.

However, the employment appeal tribunal's Lady Smith said: "We do not see that the tribunal were entitled to assume that they would not be bothered about it."

Further, Lady Smith added, if the attitude of the recipient was relevant, it could extend to many other items of non "junk" mail recipients might not be in a hurry to receive, ranging from bills to catalogues.

The original tribunal heard a bundle of 35 Capital One letters were found in the tea cupboard of the Alford delivery office.

Royal Mail claimed they should have been delivered that day.

Both workers were fired by for their part in the wilful delay of mail.

The tribunal heard Royal Mail took an extremely serious view of mail being wilfully delayed.

Mr Adam, sacked after 30 years ago including a period as manager in charge of his own delivery office, admitted he had made a mistake and apologised.

Mrs Stephen admitted she had been "bloody stupid."

A Royal Mail spokesperson told BBC Scotland: "The Royal Mail is pleased that its appeal has been upheld."

ROCKY · Post by **ROCKY** » 23 Jul 2007, 18:56

SO A MANAGER CAN LEAVE BAGS OF UNDELIVERED MAIL IN A SAFE(ISH)DROP FOR A WEEK AND NOTHING HAPPENS OR AT THE OUTSIDE A TELLING OFF AND THIS HAPPENS TO POSTIES, TIME FOR SOME EQUALITY HERE I THINK,FOOD FOR THOUGHT SOME PEOPLE ON HERE HAVE SAID THAT UNDELIVERED MAIL FROM CUT OFFS IS GOING BACK INTO THE SYSTEM FOR THE FOLLOWING DAY,I WONDER HOW THE APPEAL PEOPLE CAN SACK ONE AND UPHOLD ANOTHER IF THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS

Post by **dvbuk55** » 23 Jul 2007, 19:28

I might be out of step here, but if it was addressed mail and due and "hidden" in a tea cupboard, and it was mine - I would expect to be sacked. Then again it wouldn't be mine because I wouldn't have been daft enough to do that. The penalty may seem harsh, but someone had paid for dellivery of an item and a postperson decided not to bother. Maybe I'm too old but it seems to me that the bond of trust between the customer and RM had been broken.

Sure enough you can point to other cases but that doesn't excuse the transgression. Hopefully they will both find new jobs and try to put this unfortunate incident behind them.

ROCKY · Post by **ROCKY** » 23 Jul 2007, 20:13

YOU ARE RIGHT OF COURSE AND I WISH THEM WELL IT JUST BUGS ME THE WAY THE RULES CHANGE TO FIT EVERY DAY AND FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL,TO ME A MANAGER SHOULD PAY THE SAME PRICE WE WOULD,DELAY TO MAIL IS DELAY NO MATTER WHAT YOUR FUNCTION OR TITLE

Post by **dvbuk55** » 23 Jul 2007, 20:36

Aye - I agree with you. I've lost count of the number of times that the punishment hasn't fitted the crime because it is a favoured son. Managers are moved laterally and favourites are hand-smacked rather than sacked. It's surprising how the seriousness of an offence is watered down when it comes to "the circle of friends".

norbet colon · Post by **norbet colon** » 23 Jul 2007, 21:10

dvbuk55 wrote:Aye - I agree with you. I've lost count of the number of times that the punishment hasn't fitted the crime because it is a favoured son. Managers are moved laterally and favourites are hand-smacked rather than sacked. It's surprising how the seriousness of an offence is watered down when it comes to "the circle of friends".

Absolutely ! :lfo :cfo

bigsharkboy · Post by **bigsharkboy** » 23 Jul 2007, 21:23

norbet colon wrote:
dvbuk55 wrote:Aye - I agree with you. I've lost count of the number of times that the punishment hasn't fitted the crime because it is a favoured son. Managers are moved laterally and favourites are hand-smacked rather than sacked. It's surprising how the seriousness of an offence is watered down when it comes to "the circle of friends".
Absolutely ! :lfo :cfo

i second that too

norbet colon · Post by **norbet colon** » 24 Jul 2007, 10:28

biggazza wrote:
norbet colon wrote:
dvbuk55 wrote:Aye - I agree with you. I've lost count of the number of times that the punishment hasn't fitted the crime because it is a favoured son. Managers are moved laterally and favourites are hand-smacked rather than sacked. It's surprising how the seriousness of an offence is watered down when it comes to "the circle of friends".
Absolutely ! :lfo :cfo
and nepotism , god help a mgr who went against the grain and did things properly, also the diversity & p.c. issues

i second that too

frankie · Post by **frankie** » 24 Jul 2007, 13:04

I've seen quite a few occasions in the past, where managers have held back whole yorks of mailsort if it has been a particlarly heavy day. Is this not wilful delay?? Or not when a manager does it, only us! Not that I'm saying it's okay to delay the mail, but it's a bit like the pot and the kettle, is'nt it?

PS: I do wish the posties in question, all the best for the future!