Cases3305443/2024

Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

27 June 2025Before Employment Judge Andrew Clarke KCWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the dismissal was for a permissible reason (conduct), that the employer genuinely believed the claimant committed gross misconduct (posting a petition online making serious allegations about bullying and harassment, approaching colleagues to sign it, and sending it directly to a named manager to cause distress), that there were reasonable grounds for this belief following a reasonable investigation, that the procedure was fair, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer. The claimant's lack of honesty during the investigation, lack of remorse, and indication he would continue similar behaviour were relevant factors.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)withdrawn

Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant on 7 March 2025

Facts

The claimant worked for Royal Mail for 19 years as an OPG at Greenford Mail Hub. He raised two grievances against managers, including one against Mr Patel, which were not upheld after investigation. Unhappy with these outcomes, in October 2023 the claimant posted an open letter and petition on a public online platform alleging widespread bullying and harassment at Royal Mail. He approached colleagues on the night shift asking them to sign the petition and to get family and friends to sign. He also sent the petition link directly to Mr Patel via WhatsApp. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 25 January 2024 following a disciplinary investigation and appeal.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The employer genuinely believed the claimant committed gross misconduct by posting the petition publicly (damaging the company's reputation), soliciting colleagues to sign it, and sending it to Mr Patel to cause distress. The investigation was reasonable, the procedure was fair, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. Key factors included the claimant's lack of honesty during the investigation (including denying he sent the petition to Mr Patel despite WhatsApp evidence), his lack of remorse, and concerns he would repeat similar conduct.

Practical note

An employer can fairly dismiss for gross misconduct where an employee posts serious allegations about the employer and named managers on a public forum, even after 19 years' service, particularly where the employee is dishonest during the investigation, shows no remorse, and indicates they would continue similar behaviour.

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379British Leyland v Swift [1981] IRLR 91Retarded Children's Aid Society v Day [1978] ICR 437Nelson v BBC (No.2) [1979] IRLR 346

Statutes

Human Rights Act 1998Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(4)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.123(6)European Convention on Human Rights Article 10

Case details

Case number
3305443/2024
Decision date
27 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
OPG (Operational Postal Grade)
Service
19 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No