Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct (taking a van home without permission after being expressly told not to), carried out a reasonable investigation including an occupational health referral, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The respondent lost trust and confidence in the claimant's ability to follow instructions.

The tribunal found no evidence that the alleged PCP (failing to give sufficient weight to mental impairments when pursuing disciplinary proceedings) was a practice. The respondent referred the claimant to occupational health and considered medical evidence. The claimant was not disadvantaged as his disability was recognised and accommodated during the process.

The tribunal found no causal connection between the claimant's disability and taking the van home. There was no medical evidence that the claimant took the van because of his disability. The claimant had worked for 9 months without medication without similar incidents. The 'something arising' (taking the van) was not established as arising in consequence of disability.

The tribunal found the same PCP alleged for reasonable adjustments was not established as a practice. There was no evidence that failing to give sufficient weight to mental impairments when pursuing disciplinary proceedings was a practice applied by the respondent.