Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found that the unwanted communications from Mr Ward on 9-11 May 2023 were not disability-related. They were sent because Ward believed a flexible working arrangement needed review. The Tribunal also found the conduct had neither a harassing purpose nor a harassing effect as defined in s.26 Equality Act 2010, noting the neutral language used and that Ward stopped when asked.
The Tribunal found it would have been a reasonable adjustment to allow the claimant to start work at 06:00 (rather than the standard 06:45) from September 2023, with initial support to transition from 05:00 to 06:00. The respondent applied a PCP requiring 06:45 start which substantially disadvantaged the claimant by increasing his anxiety. The respondent failed to show why creating a shorter delivery walk or allowing earlier start times was unreasonable, given systems were in place to revise walks and tasks existed for the claimant to do before deliveries began.
Facts
The claimant, a postman employed by Royal Mail for many years, had autism and mental health issues. He had worked 05:00-12:42 for a long time, which reduced his anxiety. Following sickness absence from November 2022, his previous delivery walk disappeared in a 2023 revision. In September 2023, the respondent refused his request to continue starting at 05:00 and required him to start at 06:45 like other delivery staff. The claimant remained off sick, with occupational health reports stating he could return with a start time between 05:00-06:00. He also complained that in May 2023 his manager Mr Ward had harassed him by sending repeated letters and emails about reviewing his flexible working arrangement while he was off sick.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the harassment claim, finding the communications from Mr Ward were not disability-related and did not have a harassing purpose or effect. However, the reasonable adjustment claim succeeded. The Tribunal found that requiring the claimant to start at 06:45 put him at substantial disadvantage by increasing his anxiety, and it would have been reasonable to allow him to start at 06:00 (with a transitional period from 05:00) through revising delivery walks to create a shorter route for him. A remedy hearing was listed.
Practical note
Employers must seriously consider whether work patterns form part of reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees, and cannot rely on generic operational arguments about efficiency or fairness to other staff without detailed evidence showing why adjustment would be unreasonable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2412913/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Operational Postal Grade (OPG) / Postman
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No