Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent had some other substantial reason for dismissal: genuine and substantial concerns about reputational risk, suitability to perform roles involving mail handling, impact on staff morale, and the cost of maintaining suspension until trial. The respondent acted reasonably in dismissing the claimants given the charges, media risk, trust requirements of the public postal service, and lack of suitable alternative roles. The injustice was caused by the police and CPS pursuing charges they could not prove, not by the employer.
Facts
Both claimants, long-serving Royal Mail employees, were suspended in March 2023 after being charged with money laundering conspiracy related to their son's drug conviction. Their son had been convicted in May 2022 and sentenced to 10 years. The claimants pleaded not guilty and a trial was set for March 2025. Royal Mail dismissed them in October 2023 citing reputational risk, unsuitability for roles involving mail, impact on colleagues, and inability to sustain suspension until trial. The criminal charges were eventually dropped in March 2025.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both unfair dismissal claims. It found the respondent had some other substantial reason for dismissal: genuine concerns about reputational damage, trust in handling mail, staff morale, and financial sustainability of prolonged suspension. The tribunal accepted the respondent acted reasonably given the serious charges, public nature of the trial, trust requirements of a national postal service, and lack of suitable alternatives. The tribunal noted the injustice was caused by the police and CPS pursuing charges they could not prove, not by the employer.
Practical note
Employers can fairly dismiss employees charged with serious criminal offences (even if later acquitted) where there is a genuine and substantial link between the charges and the trust required in the role, particularly in public-facing organisations with high reputational standards.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2400229/2024
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- postal driver (first claimant), postal operative (second claimant)
- Service
- 41 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister