One veteran postal worker forged the signature of a customer and placed the undeliverable parcels in the rubbish bin. He was fired for gross misconduct, despite the fact that he claimed the homeowner had agreed to the scheme.
Samuel Shirley, who has been a Glasgow postman 26 years ago, stated that there was a “long-standing” agreement between him and the householder for her to put the deliveries in the garbage bin whenever she was not home.
However, even the best-laid plans of mice or men can sometimes go wrong. A tribunal was told that the homeowner once forgot to tell her about his delivery.
The dustmen emptied it the morning after and removed the items from the trash.
For gross misconduct, Shirley was dismissed after he attended two months before a talk at which postmen were warned not to leave items unattended.
At an employment tribunal, he appealed the decision to dismiss him. However, Royal Mail bosses sided with him and ruled his firing ‘not unfair.
Samuel Shirley was a 26-year-old postman living in Glasgow. He said that he had a long-standing agreement with his householder, which required him to drop off her mail in the trash bin when she wasn’t home. Pictured: A library image shows a postal worker
In September at Glasgow, the tribunal heard about how According to the Postman, he first started working in the Glasgow delivery office on 23 December 1993.
He attended an annual meeting on deliveries in January 2019, three months after his resignation.
The Royal Mail reminded staff that they have a responsibility to ensure the security of all mail and parcels.
According to the panel, the meeting took place on the fifth anniversary of the death Mr Shirley’s mom. Hos lawyers claimed that Shirley “might have been there physically but not in mind”.
The panel was told that two months later, Shirley had left the parcels in the blue bin near a customer’s home and then signed for one parcel on her behalf.
The woman complained that she had not taken the bags out before they were picked up.
A tribunal heard that Mr Shirley believed the bins would be secure because they weren’t empty until the following day.
The householder claimed that he was in a long-standing relationship with him, which he confirmed to the Royal Mail.
The tribunal was told by he that there were two females living at his address, which he thought to be mother or daughter.
According to him, while he was in agreement with his householder, it wasn’t the same with the woman he was with.
Royal Mail initiated an investigation. A customer who complained said that she was bound by an informal agreement, which Mr Shirley had outlined.
In April 2019, without any notice, he was dismissed. The ‘penalty was excessive’ argument was argued by him.
The appeals officer at Royal Mail, Alan Rankin concluded that Shirley did it to allow him to ‘finish early’. He was rejected by the panel.
Shirley took the matter to an Employment Tribunal. But his unfair dismissal claim was rejected.
Royal Mail’s appeal officer concluded that Shirley was doing it in order to be able to “finish early” and denied his appeal. The panel heard. Image from the Library
Peter O’Donnell was appointed as employment judge. The panel concluded that Shirley’s comment about Shirley’s customer failing to check her bin suggested a lack of regret and an effort to transfer blame to Shirley.
The tribunal found his answers to have been evasive, and an attempt to hide the fact that he was aware that he had broken Royal Mail’s rules.
“There were also indications from Mr Shirley, that he knew that he shouldn’t be signing for mail or leaving items behind. However his position wasn’t always consistent.
“However, the Tribunal considers that Mr Shirley provided evidence to the decision-makers that he knew the proper procedures.
“No matter how sympathetic the Tribunal might feel for Mr Shirley, the Tribunal was not allowed to replace its own decision
Shirley continued to maintain that the agreement he made with the customer was an excuse for his actions but never accepted responsibility.
“The Tribunal found that both Mr Rankin, Alan Mullen and the dismissing officer could reasonably conclude that Mr Shirley would not repeat the same mistake if he was employed again.
- You may know Sam Shirley of Glasgow. Contact me: james.robinson@mailonline.co.uk or tips@dailymail.co.uk