ROYAL Mail, which sacked a Newton Abbot postman with 24-and-a-half years exemplary service, was slammed by an Employment Tribunal and told the sanction of dismissal was far too severe, writes John Balment. Richard Bird was given his marching orders after the then Newton Abbot unit manager Kevin Doyle and appeals manager Adrian Courtenay-Smith decided he would have to go for swearing and being abusive to a customer. The tribunal, in Exeter, agreed unanimously that Mr Bird was unfairly dismissed and considered the investigation was cursory and that a thorough investigation had not been carried out. Neil Adlem, chairman, said insufficient weight was given to all the mitigating factors and factors of provocation were not fully investigated. 'The length of employment with a clear record was not given sufficient weight,' he said.

'We take the view that no reasonable employer faced with these facts would have come to the conclusion of dismissal,' said Mr Adams. Mr Adlem added that the tribunal acknowledged the language used was inappropriate and, taking that into account, there was a 75 per cent reduction in the level of compensation it would award. After hearing that Mr Bird wanted his job back, the matter was adjourned for a remedy hearing, which will be held next month or in early September. The tribunal was told that part of Mr Bird's round was collecting from Newton Abbot firm Pro Sport. On November 8, the postie had arrived to collect the mail but was accused of being late and was confronted by someone with an aggressive attitude. An exchange of words ensued. A check of his vehicle tachograph revealed Mr Bird arrived at the correct time. Someone from the firm had gone round to the Royal Mail office to complain and there was an incident in the yard. Questioned by Katrina Quirke, representing Mr Bird, Mr Doyle had no recollection of Mr Bird informing him on November 9 of what had happened – two of his managers were informed the previous evening – and he said the first he heard about it was on November 21. Mr Doyle said Mr Bird was told not to go to that particular customer but he could carry out his duties with other customers. 'Foul language was used to a customer,' said Mr Doyle, who charged him with gross misconduct. 'I had no complaints from any other customers, which led me to believe that there would not be any problems with him carrying on his duties,' he said. A fact finding interview on November 30 was followed by a disciplinary hearing on December 28, though Mr Doyle admitted that the letter of date and time did not reach Mr Bird until the same morning. There was an appeal against dismissal on February 16, which was refused, and Mr Bird was told of the decision in April. He continued that the level of remorse was a factor and that he was treating what he had said like a pinch of salt and had thought the customer should have brushed it off. Asked by Mrs Quirke if Royal Mail had lost the Pro Sport contract, Mr Doyle said he had no evidence of that. Mr Courtenay-Smith, also replying to questions, said he believed staff should be able to deal with aggressive customers as part of their training. 'We cannot have staff who are abusive to customers, particularly in the climate of our business at the moment,' he said, claiming the fact that Mr Bird was abusive to a customer was the key determining factor. He maintained that the remark 'a pinch of salt' was a flippant comment on Mr Bird's part and there was no indication of remorse. He said: 'Foul and abusive language took place and the customer was upset. There was evidence that new companies, rather than Royal Mail, had contracts with Pro Sport. I cannot say that that was the result of this. We have lost half of a valuable business contract. 'During the appeal he demonstrated an appalling blase attitude.' Mr Bird said he would have apologised but he was told not to go round to the company. He admitted he could have written, though he thought it might make matters worse. 'This company was always complaining about collection times and I believe Exeter have had problems with them. 'I did not pull any punches about what happened that night and have always been honest about it. 'Back at the yard, he was coming out of the office and he had another go at me,' he said. For Royal Mail, Stephen Woodman said it was a public fronted organisation and it could not be acceptable for its employees to address its customers in an abusive manner. Mrs Quirke said she did not believe the conduct on November 8 warranted dismissal.