Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair. The investigation was insufficient: key witness Mr Whitlock was excluded on unsubstantiated grounds of friendship; potentially exculpatory evidence was not pursued; the Claimant's medical history and health conditions were not investigated as relevant to the reasonableness of the management instruction. Disciplinary decision-makers looked only for inculpatory evidence. The Claimant's health conditions were obviously relevant to his capacity to undertake additional stops but were not acknowledged. Dismissal was outside the reasonable range of responses.

The Claimant did not commit gross misconduct. Miss Paine's instruction to take 10 extra stops on 19 October 2022 was unreasonable given the Claimant's known health conditions, established successful practice for managing his workload, OH advice that his manual handling limits varied day to day, and the agreement to use DLR with meaningful adult conversations. The Claimant's refusal of an unreasonable instruction did not undermine trust and confidence. His robust manner towards Miss Paine, though partly blameworthy, did not amount to gross misconduct. He was entitled to notice.

The Claimant's response/refusal on 19 October 2022 to take additional parcels was 'something arising' from his disabilities (ischaemic heart disease, back pain, diabetes). His capacity was limited by these disabilities. He was suspended, subjected to disciplinary proceedings and dismissed in part because of this refusal. The Respondent's aim of providing a reliable delivery service was legitimate, but the treatment was not proportionate. A better means was to continue managing the Claimant's workload in accordance with successful established practice that had enabled good results. The discriminatory impact outweighed the restriction on the Respondent.

One PCP succeeded: the request on 19 October 2022 for the Claimant to take on additional parcels put him at substantial disadvantage, as his disabilities were an underlying factor in his refusal and he was subjected to disciplinary process and dismissal as a result. The Respondent knew or ought to have known of the disadvantage from OH reports and the Claimant's own statements. The reasonable adjustment was simply to continue the informally agreed approach of discussing workload with line managers and allowing around 50 stops, which had worked well. Two other alleged PCPs (requiring normal hours/job description and use of REX/DLR generally) did not cause substantial disadvantage as the Claimant generally fulfilled his duties successfully with flexible management.

The Claimant's grievance of 21 June 2022 was a protected act, but there was no causal link between it and the later suspension, disciplinary proceedings or dismissal. The Claimant was suspended, disciplined and dismissed because of the incident with Miss Paine on 19 October 2022, not because he had submitted the earlier grievance. Even if Miss Paine's account of the 19 October incident was influenced by previous difficult interactions when she investigated his grievance, those interactions were not themselves the protected act.

The Respondent's use of REX and DLR to inform route and parcel numbers was applied flexibly in conjunction with speaking to the Claimant to agree manageable workload. The evidence showed the Claimant's performance in early October 2022 was good under this flexible approach. There was no proper evidential basis for finding group or individual disadvantage. The system was not inflexible in the way alleged.

The Respondent applied REX and DLR flexibly, not as an inflexible system. The Claimant's evidence showed successful workload management through flexible use of route prediction tools in conjunction with discussions with line managers. There was no proper evidential basis for finding particular disadvantage to older drivers.