So, Seamus, just on that we've been talking about members of the public not being kind to employees. We move on to our next topic, which is more about employees not being kind to members of the public. We kind of flipped it a bit. We're going to show you a short video of this particular incident. It's a gentleman, shall we call him, in Scotland who previously worked for the Royal Mail. You may have seen it circulating on social media. So we're asking the question, what standard of behaviour can be inferred in a contract of employment? So where's that line between just expecting people to be decent human beings? How can we . . . and dealing with something contractually, is it a disciplinary issue? So hopefully, Katie, you've got the video queued up and we can have a quick look at it.

Find the Video Here

So interesting one. Obviously, he's had a very long, hard morning, that particular postman, and the OAP lying in the snow is not a priority. So I suppose my first question, Seamus, is would this gentleman have been dismissed had it not been for social media, and also just the high profile nature of his employer. We're talking Royal Mail here. It's a household name. So what's your take on that?

Seamus: So background to this is we have the older lady that has slept in the snow and unable to move. Postman comes up delivers the post. She asks for help. And he says, I've had a long day, I'm tired, I can't help you. And off he goes. I think subsequently to that there was maybe a DHL or one of those type companies that were doing a delivery that did subsequently help, but unfortunately for the individual and for Royal Mail, this was caught on camera and then shared. So the employee was subsequently sacked and dismissed and because he hadn't helped the lady whenever she'd fallen.

We could all say, look, common acts of decency, kindness, but looking at it from an employer's perspective, I suspect, Christine, the issues that probably have arisen are that you're right, you're talking about Royal Mail. It is a household name. It's a well-known company to us all. The employee worked in a public space, and he was obviously a door to door delivering letters. He wore a uniform identifying his employer and probably he would have been known to the locals if he was delivering the mail to the same area every day. He would have been known. So the complaints follow through to Royal Mail.

And I suppose the actions really around it when I look out from the private stance, we're looking at how would you discipline an employee in relation to this and dismiss them. We know of the various head, the limited heads in relation to when it comes to dismissal and the likes of conduct, capability, redundancy. This probably would fall under some other substantial reason. And really, what you're looking at here is the impact of the actions upon the employer's reputation. And we were talking briefly and I know just in your prior role, that you would have been advising a lot of employers and you were saying that they would have rang up a lot to say our reputation has been damaged. But you do need to be very careful when it comes to reputational damage. It's one that can often be thrown into disciplinary proceedings. And then when you get to the tribunal, the tribunal will say, well, how is this actually damage the reputation. We need proof of that. How do you establish that and what do you hold it out to be?

So I think it's important that any organisation and I would anticipate probably that Royal Mail do you have some sort of ethos and document or some sort of policy in relation to expected standards for their employees. And certainly, I do think that the actions of the individual fell short of common decency in itself, and you can understand the impact that would have really in relation to the trust and confidence that the employer could have on the employee. Could you flip that over and say, "Well, if the employee is unwilling to do that, what other aspects of their job that they're contractually bound to do are they doing or not doing?" Don't want to be straying really into that aspect of it. But it's about the implied duty of trust and confidence and looking to see what those standards are. I think that it is important that there is something in writing, whether it's in the staff handbook, whether it's in the front page of the handbook that says these are our standards, these are our morals, these are our expectations, but certainly I do think that the employer needs to have that set out in writing so that when you come to a disciplinary that you can rely upon that.

But I've no doubt that in this specific circumstance, that the fact that it was Royal Mail and the big factor that was on social media and it was picked up by various media outlets in Scotland further afield, that this has led to the employer taking serious action.

Christine: Yeah. So I mean, I suppose what we're talking about is common decency and you can't possibly list everything that you expect. I mean, who would have thought left an old lady off the snow where she has fallen would come up. Is it kind of a mission statement almost that you need in your contract, or this is the values of our organisation? Is that how you would go about it, Seamus?

Seamus: Yeah. I think that's right. Specifically, where you have a company. I mean, all organisations are providing some sort of service and that might not always be on a public basis, they might be on a on a private basis. But even from the point of view of a customer of your organisation, you'll have terms and conditions how the parties are going to interact. And it would be an entirely sensible and prudent step to have something written down to say how employees are going to react or, sorry, act in their role. And again, setting out what those expectations are so it just can't be limited to these are your hours of work. We expect you to work from this time to this time. You'll be given breaks and paid this amount. You know, it needs to be further than that.

And I certainly think from a tribunal perspective, Christine, I would say the larger the organisation, the bigger the onus a tribunal would place on the organisation to have those sorts of things set out in writing. If you're a very small organisation with a couple of employees, the burden is not going to be the same if you are Royal Mail or Marks & Spencer, or one of the . . . or Tesco or one of the largest employers that we have. So it is about . . . what you can't do is you can apply that level of decency, certainly, and you can say what your expectation is, but you also need to let employees know what the standard of behaviour and professionalism is that's required within the role. And that's something that probably should be implied throughout the organisation from the top down to the bottom. And absolutely, and you do hear about certain employers that people say they're not good to work for it and their mission is just to make money and things like that.

But it's things like even the corporate responsibility now that is built into organisations, where employers are prepared to spend time and money on that they should be very clear about what the expectations are that they have for their employees.

Christine: Brilliant, Seamus. I'm just very mindful of the time here. I can see we're just coming up to the end of our webinar, and it's absolutely flowing in as usual. And so, everybody, thank you.

Seamus: I'll maybe just mention, Christine, just for anyone, there's a fairly recent case there, Lafferty and Nuffield Health. It's a February 2020 case, slightly different to this aspect of kindness, but it does focus on reputational damage of the employer. It's an interesting read. This was a porter and coordinator within this private health care setting. And he was charged with a number of criminal offenses including attempted rape. He went to his employer, put his hands up and said, I I've been charged with these, but I deny them, and the employer ultimately dismissed the employee, even before there had been a court hearing or anything like that, on the basis that there was going to be reputational damage.

I supposed to take away point ultimately, were backed the EAT have find that the dismissal was fair both the original tribunal and the EAT held that it was fair that the employer had acted reasonably and because they did perceive that there was a genuine risk of potential damage and they were able to set that out in detail, that out to the tribunal and show the tribunal and really importantly they carried out their proper investigation and the tribunal seem to have been swayed because they have investigated the matter clearly, and they had taken their decision on the basis of the investigation as to what happened and what the potential was in respect to the risk and the damage to the organisation. So it's slightly different in the sense of coming away from that kindness aspect, but ultimately, those cases will come down to I think, some other substantial reason and looking at the aspect of reputational damage so there's a case there if anybody wants to look at that. It is February 2020 case, Lafferty and Nuffield Health