Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for some other substantial reason (SOSR) — namely her unambiguous refusal to work the late shift to which she could lawfully be assigned. Occupational health confirmed this was not a medical issue but a workplace concern about shift patterns. The respondent acted reasonably in all the circumstances; the claimant accepted she had no contractual entitlement to remain on the early shift. The dismissal was fair.

The claimant withdrew this claim during the hearing, accepting in oral evidence that her trade union activity (a grievance of 4 February 2023) was not the reason for her dismissal. The tribunal found the reason was her refusal to return to the late shift, not any trade union activity.

The tribunal found the claimant's grievance of 4 February 2023 was not a trade union activity for the purposes of s146 TULR(C)A but an individual complaint. In any event, key managers (Ms Jagpal) were unaware of the grievance, so the alleged detriments could not have been caused by trade union activity. Each alleged detriment was either found not to have occurred or not to have been caused by any protected trade union activity.

The claimant alleged direct race discrimination (south Indian/Telugu origin) in relation to shift allocation, refusal to hear grievances, stopping sick pay, and dismissal. The tribunal found no evidence that the named comparators were in materially similar circumstances, and no basis to infer race discrimination. The claimant's comparators had made timely flexible working requests based on current circumstances; hers was prospective and not pursued. In one case (Karen Neely), the tribunal found the manager probably did not even know the claimant's ethnicity. The claims failed.

The claimant alleged racial harassment in relation to stopping sick pay and being labelled 'non-cooperative'. The tribunal found no evidence these acts were related to race. The allegation was not put to the relevant manager in cross-examination, and the claimant's own witness statement did not reference stopping sick pay as harassment. The tribunal found managers were not rude or bullying, and that requirements to return to the late shift were lawful. The claims failed.

The claimant alleged victimisation arising from grievances raised in May and June 2023. The sole remaining detriment (Mr Chander not disclosing information about casual hours on 7 June 2023) occurred, but the tribunal saw no basis for concluding it was caused by the claimant's grievance of 19 May 2023. The claim failed.

The claimant's sick pay was stopped by Ms Jagpal on 16 May 2023 under the respondent's sick pay policy, which allows refusal of sick pay if absence is not deemed necessary or due to genuine illness. Occupational health concluded the claimant's absence was a workplace concern (refusal to work late shift) not a primary medical problem. The respondent was entitled to stop full sick pay. The claim failed.

All sex discrimination claims were withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing.