Veteran postman sacked for forging customer's signature and leaving her parcels in bin

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Veteran postman is sacked for forging customer's signature and leaving her parcels in bin despite 'long-standing agreement to do so'... after dustmen disposed of them with rest of garbage

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-bin.html

>Samuel Shirley claimed he had a deal with a customer to leave packages in a bin
>He was sacked after a homeowner complained that her packages had been lost
>Mr Shirley had left the two packages in the bin but his red note had been missed
>They were then collected by the binmen during their rounds the next morning
>Mr Shirley, who has been a postman in the Glasgow area for 26 years, appealed
>But employment tribunal judges have now ruled his sacking was 'not unfair'

A veteran postman who forged a customer's signature and left her undelivered parcels in a rubbish bin was sacked for gross misconduct - despite his claims that the householder had 'agreed' to the plan.

Samuel Shirley, a postman in the Glasgow area for 26 years, said he had a 'long-standing' deal with the householder to leave her deliveries in the bin if she was out.

But the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry; and a tribunal heard that on one occasion the homeowner missed his red note telling her about the delivery.

The bin was emptied the following morning by the dustmen and the parcels were taken away with the rest of the rubbish.

Mr Shirley, who two months earlier attended a talk in which postmen were told not to leave items 'unsecured', was fired for gross misconduct.

He appealed his sacking at an employment tribunal. But employment judges have now sided with bosses at Royal Mail, who ruled that his dismiss was 'not unfair'.

The tribunal, held in Glasgow in September, heard how told the postman first began working at the Glasgow delivery office in 1993.

In January 2019, three months before his sacking, he attended an annual meeting about deliveries and 'door-stepping' - where postal workers leave parcels or letters on or near the doorstep when the homeowner isn't in.

During the meeting staff were reminded of the 'obligations' of the Royal Mail and its staff not to leave parcels and letters 'unsecure'.

The panel heard the meeting was held on the anniversary of Mr Shirley's mother's death. His lawyers claimed that Mr Shirley 'might have been there in body but not of mind'.

Two months later, Mr Shirley left the two parcels in a blue bin next to a customer's house and signed for a parcel on her behalf, the panel heard.

She then made a complaint as she not retrieved them before the bins were collected.

The tribunal was told Mr Shirley thought they would be safe as bins were not emptied until the next day.

He said he had a 'long-standing agreement' of more than two years with the householder - something which the Royal Mail confirmed.

However he told the tribunal that two women lived at the address - who he believed to be mother and daughter.

He said that while he had an agreement with the householder, he did not have the same agreement with the other woman.

Royal Mail launched an investigation and the customer who submitted the complaint admitted that she had an informal agreement as outlined by Mr Shirley.

Despite this, he was sacked in April 2019 without notice. He appealed on the basis the 'penalty was too harsh'.

But Alan Rankin, Royal Mail's appeal officer, concluded that Mr Shirley had done it so that he could 'finish early' and rejected his appeal, the panel heard.

Mr Shirley then took the matter to an employment tribunal. However his claim for unfair dismissal failed.

The panel, headed by employment judge Peter O'Donnell, concluded: 'Mr Shirley's comments about the customer not checking her bin indicated a lack of remorse and was an attempt to shift blame to the customer.

'The tribunal found his answers to be evasive and an attempt to avoid admitting that he did know that he had acted in a manner which was a breach of Royal Mail's rules.

'There was also evidence from Mr Shirley that he was aware that he should not be leaving items or signing for mail although his position was not always consistent.

'However, the tribunal considers that the decision-makers did have evidence from Mr Shirley that he did know the correct procedures.

'No matter how much sympathy the Tribunal may have with Mr Shirley, it was not for the tribunal to substitute its own decision

'Mr Shirley also stuck to the position that his agreement with the customer excused his actions without ever really accepting that he should never have made this in the first place.

'The tribunal considered that it was reasonable for both Alan Mullen, the dismissing officer, and Mr Rankin to conclude that Mr Shirley, if he had continued in employment, could not have been trusted to not do the same thing again.'

[Jack1960]

I really feel sorry for him, I get fed up telling customers we can't do this , even when I scan safe place not safe they complain .

[TopperGas]

I really feel sorry for him, I get fed up telling customers we can't do this , even when I scan safe place not safe they complain .

Nobody complains until it goes horribly wrong, surely a final warning would have been sufficient after 23 years service, particularly when it seems that the customer had previously agreed that parcels could be left in her wheely bin.

[ted_e_bear]

I really feel sorry for him, I get fed up telling customers we can't do this , even when I scan safe place not safe they complain .

So do I, they really didn't need to sack him, whatever it cost them compensation for the item is an absolute drop in the ocean compared to the amount they continually piss up the wall, as for maintaining quality of service what a joke these days

[General Mannerheim]

He's learned the hard way that 20 odd years service means feck all to these muppets and if they can get rid of somebody especially a veteran they will.
I also love the line he wanted to finish early from the appeals w****r, they really do have a very poor opinion of us posties, we are always on the make to them.

[koolishy67]

P739 as simple as that

[POSTPERSON50]

He's learned the hard way that 20 odd years service means feck all to these muppets and if they can get rid of somebody especially a veteran they will.
I also love the line he wanted to finish early from the appeals w****r, they really do have a very poor opinion of us posties, we are always on the make to them.

Appeals managers are supposed to be independent, yeah right. They break their necks to confirm a dismissal, ignore length of service and a clear record, confer with the dismissing manager, the lot of them are a closed shop.
One mistake and you're gone these days, and they're hoping you make that mistake.

[NWpostie]

particularly when it seems that the customer had previously agreed that parcels could be left in her wheely bin.

His biggest mistake is not getting it in writing, confirmed with the management and union to cover his back.

That said a wheely bin is not the best place for it.

[SpacePhoenix]

The forging of the signature was probably almost certain to have been a straight gross misconduct charge on its own

[geordieboy123]

The forging of the signature was probably almost certain to have been a straight gross misconduct charge on its own

I didn’t think we were asking for signatures we don’t we just sign cv19

[TrueBlueTerrier]

To be frank I think this is what made him fail at tribunal.

'The tribunal found his answers to be evasive and an attempt to avoid admitting that he did know that he had acted in a manner which was a breach of Royal Mail's rules.

'There was also evidence from Mr Shirley that he was aware that he should not be leaving items or signing for mail although his position was not always consistent.

At the tribunal I think he should have been open, frank and honest, even when he though doing so would have hurt him.

Because the tribunal thought he wasn't it reinforced this part

'The tribunal considered that it was reasonable for both Alan Mullen, the dismissing officer, and Mr Rankin to conclude that Mr Shirley, if he had continued in employment, could not have been trusted to not do the same thing again.'

I have always thought its better to be open and honest, even if you think it might hurt you. Its probably why I am still here on RMC and working for Royal Mail, even though they identified me during an investigation about a post on here.

[iHateD2Ds]

They certainly wanted rid of this postie and used his mistake to nail him.
Shame after 23 three years of service it’s come to this.

[POSTPERSON50]

Management have their favourites. Every office has them, ones who will do them favours, come in on days off, do an extra bag, drop onto another job. They make mistakes, miss a collection, post a reg, doorstep a parcel and it's glossed over. Staff who are sick regularly, awkward, stick to their guns and work to their time are in the firing line. I've seen a blind eye turned to acts of gross misconduct hundreds of times, and I've seen posties sacked on a technicality. If everyone was treated the same and all rules were strictly followed, half of the managers would be the first out of the door.

[POSTPERSON50]

The forging of the signature was probably almost certain to have been a straight gross misconduct charge on its own

You're right and times have changed. 20 years ago, I was delivering on Christmas Eve and I was just about finished my round when I had 2 special delivery Christmas cards for a 'Master' and 'Miss' in my last bundle. I used to notice serve to the local post office but that was due to close shortly for a few days over Christmas. Nobody was in the house, I signed for the cards, left a note saying what I'd done and why as I was the regular postie. A week later the customer gave me a thanks and a bottle of wine. That could have easily gone bad for me, but it seemed the right thing to do back then, and I'd done it before. These days it's far too dodgy.

[SpacePhoenix]

The forging of the signature was probably almost certain to have been a straight gross misconduct charge on its own

I didn’t think we were asking for signatures we don’t we just sign cv19

It's around April 2019 when it happened so there wasn't Covid around then