Royal Mail postmen should not be sacked if caught urinating in public, a tribunal has ruled

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 23 Jun 2020, 16:10

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ng-public/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An employment tribunal in Watford found that public urination was "not an uncommon" occurrence for postmen on duty

Royal Mail postmen should not be sacked if they are caught urinating during rounds, a tribunal has suggested, after one worker was dismissed for relieving himself in a lay-by.

Roo Rawal was fired for gross misconduct in 2017 after he was filmed allegedly urinating in a "very busy street" near his depot in Watford, Herts. Mr Rawal had worked for the Royal Mail for 17 years.

Challenging his dismissal at an employment tribunal, postal workers described how public urination had become routine among men and women, adding they were sometimes left with "no option".

The hearing was told that at least 12 of Mr Rawal's colleagues had kept their jobs after they were caught relieving themselves, including one postman who urinated next to a front door.

Veteran postman Adam Hicks told the hearing such incidents happen "all the time" because of the nature and circumstances of the role, adding some workers "have no option but to urinate while on duty".

Mr Rawal was fired following a complaint in September 2017 which included footage of him allegedly urinating in a lay-by.

"It was really upsetting seeing someone doing that on the street, especially someone from a big, famous and professional company as Royal Mail," the complaint read.

"That's a very busy street where even children can see him. We can confirm we are still distressed by this disturbing behaviour and we really hope you will do something about it."

The tribunal concluded Mr Rawal was unfairly dismissed, adding the issue surrounding public urination was "not an uncommon matter".

The panel said there was no evidence any workers caught urinating had been formally disciplined, and suggested Royal Mail must rank the offence "at the less serious end of the misconduct scale".

A separate claim for racial discrimination was dismissed. The Telegraph has contacted Royal Mail for comment.

Compensation will be decided at an upcoming hearing.

matthew68 · Post by **matthew68** » 23 Jun 2020, 17:17

Good I’m glad he won because it’s near on impossible to find a loo when delivery takes 6 hours and. O public toilets anywhere near your round

Post by **General Mannerheim** » 23 Jun 2020, 18:24

Royal Mail managers taking the piss again.

Phantom · Post by **Phantom** » 23 Jun 2020, 20:33

If you need the toilet go to a Supermarket or back to the office - no matter how far away it is and either book the time or cut off if you need to.

goddard7 · Post by **goddard7** » 24 Jun 2020, 04:52

The interesting part of this case is that the tribunal felt Mr Rawal was unfairly dismissed due in principle to his trade union activities as a rep.Mr Rawal also had to pay for legal representation as CWU HQ declined to do so.

Dindin · Post by **Dindin** » 24 Jun 2020, 13:05

General Mannerheim wrote:Royal Mail managers taking the piss again.

I wouldn't give them that.

Spartacus · Post by **Spartacus** » 24 Jun 2020, 15:23

goddard7 wrote:The interesting part of this case is that the tribunal felt Mr Rawal was unfairly dismissed due in principle to his trade union activities as a rep.Mr Rawal also had to pay for legal representation as CWU HQ declined to do so.

That's a bit disturbing, are we now in a situation when the union isn't even representing union activists at tribunals? Did they think he had less than 50% chance of winning, that's some serious misjudgement by someone within the union, unless of course there's more to this than is being reported.

Post by **WASD** » 24 Jun 2020, 18:32

Highly alarming about CWU.

17yrs service too.

Urinating is normal. How would the family feel if someone pulled them up on say their child was being sick at the side of the road!?

yellowbelly · Post by **yellowbelly** » 24 Jun 2020, 19:55

Just have a read of the actual Tribunal report, a fine example of scandalous management behaviour.......but
the actual summary of the tribunal is as follows (I don't think it means it's fine to urinate in public as per the headline, but it's a known problem).......

89.We have found that the main reason for the claimant’s dismissal was his relationship
with his direct line manager Mr Maddy.

92.In summary, we have found:

92.1.The principle reason for the claimant’s dismissal was his trade union activities.The claimant’s dismissal was unfair contrary to section 152 (2) of theTrade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 andPart X of the ERA; and

92.2.The claimant’s claim for unlawful race discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 is unsuccessful and dismissed.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... 04062-2018" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **General Mannerheim** » 25 Jun 2020, 19:10

Spartacus wrote:
goddard7 wrote:The interesting part of this case is that the tribunal felt Mr Rawal was unfairly dismissed due in principle to his trade union activities as a rep.Mr Rawal also had to pay for legal representation as CWU HQ declined to do so.

That's a bit disturbing, are we now in a situation when the union isn't even representing union activists at tribunals? Did they think he had less than 50% chance of winning, that's some serious misjudgement by someone within the union, unless of course there's more to this than is being reported.

This has been going on for sometime.
That's why it makes me laugh when you get the usual suspects on on here and elsewhere who trot out the it's better to be in the union as it's an insurance policy if you get sacked.