A FORMER postman will hear at the end of June whether his claim of unfair dismissal against Guernsey Post has been successful.
During a three-day tribunal at Les Cotils, which started on Thursday, Marcus Laurence disputed the company’s reasons for sacking him.
Yesterday, the final day of the hearing, he gave his evidence about the chain of events leading to his dismissal in October 2007. He also called a Communication Workers Union representative to support his claims.
The tribunal had earlier heard evidence from several Guernsey Post staff backing up his former employer’s case. In March of last year, he is said to have wilfully delayed post after failing to follow instructions to collect a bundle of letters on a table. Mr Laurence claimed that he misheard the order and had instead picked up some left on top of his bag – a point denied by Guernsey Post.
The following month, he was involved in an argument with a member of staff at HMV, one of the company’s clients. HMV lodged a complaint against him, claiming he had provoked their employee, which Mr Laurence also denied.
In a separate incident in July, while on a delivery he is said to have reversed a van into a lamp post. He was disciplined for failing to report the incident. Mr Laurence said he had not realised that he had caused any damage because he could not see any when he got out of the van to check. For that he received a final written warning.
The final incident was in August and involved an altercation with a fellow member of staff. That incident was said to have been witnessed by four individuals, who all gave a similar account that Mr Laurence had either ‘whacked’ or thrown post against the chest of another worker.
Mr Laurence denied the claims, telling the tribunal he had put the mail down on the desk with no physical contact. He claimed those who ‘witnessed’ the incident had not in fact even seen it.
Advocate Jessica Roland, representing Guernsey Post, told the tribunal that Mr Laurence had received warnings throughout his employment and before these incidents. The last one activated his final written warning, leading to his dismissal.
In mitigation, Mr Laurence said that during each hearing with his employer the same member of staff, Shaun Lihou, had investigated and been involved in the outcome. He believed there was bias against him.
‘I feel without a shadow of a doubt that management abused the company code in many ways with their overzealous approach to tackling certain individuals who were deemed to be “slipping on the radar”,’ said Mr Laurence in his closing statement.
But Advocate Roland claimed that all of the hearings conducted by her client were fair.
For example, in the lamp post incident he had been accused of dishonesty, but that was reduced to a lesser charge of failing to report an accident.
‘He was submitted to a fair and rigorous investigation,’ she said. ‘We have heard about a series of complex outcomes which tended towards leniency.’
Chairman of the tribunal Peter Woodward told both parties that the result would not be released until the end of next month.
‘We’ve heard some strong testimony and I think we have a great deal to consider,’ he said.
Article posted on 21st May, 2008 - 2.29pm
Loading ...
Most Commented: