Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

The tribunal found the claimant's dismissal unfair due to multiple related factors: the disciplinary allegations were insufficiently clear, the respondent never properly investigated what material the claimant shared and when, and did not fully explore the allegations of dishonesty and collusion. The respondent had no reasonable grounds to conclude the claimant had acted in collusion. While the claimant did breach confidentiality rules, which constituted potential misconduct, the process was fundamentally flawed.

The tribunal found that while some requirements did put the claimant at a disadvantage (e.g., being given only three days to respond to interview notes, the lack of appropriate interpreter at the 12 August meeting), in most cases the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was at that disadvantage because of his disability. The claimant communicated in written English, appeared to respond adequately within deadlines, and did not request additional time or support. The respondent could not reasonably have anticipated issues with dialect differences in BSL interpreters absent any indication from the claimant.

The claimant alleged he was dismissed because he failed to understand the need for confidentiality and its consequences, arising from his disability. However, the tribunal found clear evidence that the claimant did understand the confidentiality requirements and their seriousness. He acknowledged receiving and understanding clear instructions not to discuss the case with Paula Watts. His position was that he believed he had permission to share material, not that he didn't understand the need for confidentiality. Since the 'something arising' was not established on the facts, the claim could not succeed.