Published: Thursday, 27th November, 2008 12:30pm

Sacked postie wins payout

Print | Email

A GREENOCK postman who won compensation for unfair dismissal after taking a day off because of a hangover has welcomed the decision.

John McMeikan today told the Tele he was happy with the outcome of the tribunal and was moving on with his life.

He said: “I am happy with the decision and felt I got a fair hearing. The tribunal reached the correct decision.

“I hope the decision opens the Royal Mail’s eyes to treat people fairly. People do have problems and they have got to help them with that. I’m studying and working at the weekends somewhere else now so I am happy with things.”

The tribunal heard he started as a postman, based at Inverclyde delivery office, in August 2005.

Mr McMeikan was given two warnings and delivery office manager Kevin Barclay noted there were a number of one-day absences and several unauthorised absences, each of which occurred on Saturdays or Mondays.

At the time of the first warning, the tribunal heard he said several close members of his family and friends had died following illnesses.

It was also said for his second warning, in December 2006, the postman explained he lived on his own and ‘enjoyed his social life maybe to the extreme in some cases’.

Mr McMeikan was dismissed last November after two more absences on 3 May and on 21 July last year, but the tribunal found it unfair, noting Mr Barclay appeared to disregard the fact that, by the time the interview took place on 26 October last year, there had been no further absences. The tribunal said insufficient consideration had been given to the fact his attendance record had undoubtedly improved and accepted the facts did not fit with Mr Barclay’s analysis.

However, Mr McMeikan, whose address was given as Lynedoch Court, Greenock, had failed to alert Royal Mail he had an alcohol-related problem and was found to be 75 per cent to blame. His compensation was reduced to £1,570.

A Royal Mail spokeswoman said: “We are disappointed with the employment tribunal decision and the robust attendance procedures were strictly followed in this case.”