Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was not unfair. The judgment does not provide detailed reasoning, but the claim was dismissed after a full merits hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the claimant under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability). This means the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability, and could not show the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The tribunal upheld two specific failures: (1) failing to allow the claimant to return to work on a phased basis with reduced hours from 13 February 2023, and (2) failing to provide new PPE/footwear on her return to work from 13 February 2023. These failures placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and were reasonable adjustments that should have been made. Other reasonable adjustment claims were dismissed.
Facts
Miss Punter, a disabled employee of Royal Mail, was dismissed. She claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The key issues concerned her return to work from 13 February 2023, when the respondent refused to allow her to return on a phased basis with reduced hours and failed to provide new PPE/footwear. The respondent also failed to comply with the ACAS disciplinary and grievance code.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim but upheld the section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim and two specific failures to make reasonable adjustments relating to phased return and PPE provision. The tribunal extended time for the reasonable adjustment claims and applied a 10% ACAS uplift for the respondent's failure to follow proper procedures. Total compensation including interest was £20,000.77.
Practical note
Employers must proactively implement reasonable adjustments for disabled employees returning to work, including phased returns and appropriate equipment, and failure to do so can result in substantial discrimination awards even where dismissal itself is found to be fair.
Award breakdown
Vento band: middle
Adjustments
The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it was just and equitable to increase the compensation payable to the claimant by 10%.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2401148/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No