Two postmen were sacked for not delivering mail to addresses in Oxford although they claimed overtime for it, a tribunal heard.
Gary Quick, 33, and David Chand, 26, who had both been working at the east Oxford delivery office in Sandy Lane West, Blackbird Leys, since 1989, were both dismissed for gross misconduct.
They lost an appeal to the Post Office against the decision and have now gone to an industrial tribunal in a bid to get their jobs back, claiming unfair dismissal.
Ian Lee, representing the Post Office, told the hearing how both men were sacked in March this year for allegedly wilfully delaying mail in February.
Mr Chand, of Cowley, did not deliver ten of the items of post he was given during his overtime and Mr Quick, of Blackbird Leys, brought seven back to the office.
Mr Lee said it was the duty of the Post Office to deliver letters "promptly and safely" and each postman signs a declaration to that effect when they join. It is a criminal as well as a disciplinary offence to open or delay any letter.
Wilful delay of mail is so serious that it can lead to dismissal for a first offence and in Oxford at the time it was being clamped down on as managers were trying to raise standards. Both men were given an extra three-and-a-half hours paid overtime to sort and deliver their post but left more than an hour early - although they had earlier claimed they would need more time, the tribunal heard.
Manager Allan Summerlin, the manager who held a disciplinary hearing then dismissed them, told the tribunal that neither of them disputed not delivering the post.
Mr Chand, who had one previous written warning for wilful delay of mail, claims his line manager Julie Pringle said he should leave the rest of his post undelivered, although Ms Pringle denies this. Mr Chand then passed this message on to Mr Quick before they both went home.
The case hinges on whether the members of the tribunal believe the postmen's story against that of their inexperienced manager, who strenuously denied she gave them any such order.
The hearing continues.
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article