Related Articles
Simon Bacon was dismissed from his job with Parcelforce last year after a shipment of air rifles went missing
A Parcelforce worker took his employers to an employment tribunal after he was sacked over the disappearance of a box of air rifles. Simon Bacon, 50, from Kirkby, had worked for Parcelforce, a Royal Mail subsidiary, in Huyton for more than five years when he was dismissed after the shipment, destined for a shop in Aintree, went missing.
Following a Royal Mail investigation into the parcel’s disappearance, the dad-of-two was dismissed from his job in January 2024. But the former postal worker challenged the decision, taking Royal Mail to an employment tribunal where he was represented by his partner, 39-year-old barber Stacey Williams.
Ms Williams, also from Kirkby, who has no legal training, was successful against Royal Mail’s solicitors, and Mr Bacon’s complaint of unfair dismissal was successful.
She told the ECHO: “We were going up against a solicitor, and we weren’t confident, but all I had to do was tell the truth. I’m not qualified in any of this, I’m just a barber.”
Mr Bacon was due to deliver three packages to Taskers Angling in Aintree on October 3 2023. Two were delivered, but the third, which contained five air rifles, was reported as undelivered by the store.
Mr Bacon maintained he could not remember whether the box was loaded onto the van or not. The Tribunal found that, on balance, it was “likely” the box was lost between Huyton and Aintree.
Royal Mail dismissed Mr Bacon on January 3, 2024, citing “gross misconduct” in “failing to secure” the vehicle and losing a parcel.
But the Tribunal found issues with the given reasons for Mr Bacon’s dismissal.
In a report seen by the ECHO, the tribunal heard Mr Bacon’s manager at the Huyton depot, Gareth Sullivan, referred to a “lack of remorse on the part of Mr Bacon” and that he was “blaming other people and systems and not appearing to be accountable for his actions.”
The Tribunal did not accept there was evidence of Mr Bacon being obstructive or failing to take responsibility. Employment Judge Johnson wrote: “He was having trouble remembering the situation and was understandably frustrated, but we found that he was actually engaged in the disciplinary process and was simply trying to find an explanation as to what happened.
“This has continued throughout the proceedings, and we were unable to find evidence in support of the contention that there was a failure to show remorse.
“This erroneous belief on the part of Mr Sullivan, that there was a failure to show remorse was another tipping point that persuaded him dismissal was the only option. However, based upon the evidence available to this Tribunal, this was not a reasonable view to hold.”
There was a point of contention as to whether the rear doors of the van had been locked during the round, with Mr Bacon maintaining the van was locked and that he unlocked the van to deliver the parcels to Taskers.
The Tribunal found Mr Sullivan “simply appeared to decide that the rear door was routinely left unlocked without properly assessing that there was any truth” to Mr Bacon’s claim, with Mr Sullivan “unwilling to make further enquiries to review a longer period of CCTV footage at Taskers to see whether the van door was unlocked at the gate as suggested.”
The Tribunal heard “convincing evidence” during the hearing that rear doors on Royal Mail lorries “had a tendency to roll up” and that Mr Sullivan made “no consideration” of this point.
Judge Johnson wrote: “Accordingly, we cannot accept that Mr Sullivan had reasonable grounds to believe that gross misconduct had taken place as there was insufficient consideration as to whether there was not a clear breach of the policy.
“While overall a reasonable investigation had taken place, Mr Sullivan was reluctant to engage with any challenge from Mr Bacon and was not prepared to consider Mr Bacon’s concerns.”
Mr Bacon had previously been warned over infringements of the tachographs on his vans – a system that monitors how a vehicle is being driven – and Mr Sullivan took this into account in his decision to dismiss Mr Bacon. But the Tribunal found this warning to be “problematic” as it arose from a “confused process” and was “not supported by clear evidence.”
The Tribunal found this was “wrongly treated as an aggravating factor” in the decision to dismiss Mr Bacon.
Judge Johnson added: “Moreover, the firm conclusion of a lack of remorse seemed to simply relate to Mr Bacon having difficulties remembering what happened, not admitting guilt and questioning the processes that existed … we did not accept that there was evidence that he was seeking to blame others and he was not trying to disrupt the process.”
The Tribunal found Mr Bacon was unfairly dismissed. The successful complaint of unfair dismissal proceeded to a remedy hearing.
A Royal Mail spokesperson said: “We acknowledge the findings of the employment tribunal.”
Do you have an employment story? Get in touch with me at jonathan.blackburn@reachplc.com
Source link
