Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. The respondents failed to interview all potential witnesses present on 26-27 January 2023, failed to view CCTV, and did not provide the claimant with a list of staff on shift. Significant inconsistencies between witness accounts were not addressed. The investigation fell outside the band of reasonable responses.

Claims relating to events before 17 January 2023 were struck out as outside the time limit. The tribunal found the older events (2018, 2019-2021) did not form conduct extending over a period and it was not just and equitable to extend time given the lapse of time, different facts, different witnesses, and prejudice to the respondent.

The tribunal found the allegations made against the claimant were true, not false. The claimant did make racially offensive remarks. Mr Dobe and Miss Buffin were credible witnesses. The reporting and disciplinary process were not because of the claimant's race. No valid comparators were identified and there was no evidence that someone of a different race in the same circumstances would have been treated differently.

Claims relating to events before 17 January 2023 were struck out as outside the time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The older events did not form conduct extending over a period.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated differently because of his age. The allegations were made because of what Mr Dobe and Miss Buffin observed (the racially offensive comments and long toilet breaks), not because of the claimant's age. The disciplinary decisions were made for reasons unrelated to age.

Claims relating to events before 17 January 2023 (heavy lifting work, toilet access issues in 2018) were struck out as outside the time limit. The tribunal found these events did not form conduct extending over a period with the 2023 events and it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The tribunal found that Mr Dobe questioned the claimant about the length (not frequency) of toilet breaks, which was not related to the claimant's disability as there was no medical need for long breaks. The claimant was given opportunities to explain any special requirements but did not do so. The disciplinary process was not because of the claimant's disability.

The tribunal found that the conduct complained of (reporting the claimant, the disciplinary process) was not related to race, was not done with the purpose of violating dignity, and did not have that effect. The reports were made in good faith based on what was observed. The allegations were true, not false.

The tribunal found the conduct was not related to age and did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating environment. The conduct was related to what was observed (long breaks and racially offensive comments), not the claimant's age.

The tribunal found that questioning the claimant about long toilet breaks (not frequent breaks) was not related to his disability. The claimant had opportunities to explain any disability-related need but did not. The conduct did not have the purpose or effect required for harassment.

Although the claimant did protected acts (grievance in March 2023 and ACAS contact in April 2023), the tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was not because of those protected acts. Mr Mullen's decision was made for wholly other reasons (the alleged misconduct), not because the claimant had raised a grievance or contacted ACAS.

The PCP alleged (requiring the claimant only to use the toilet at break times) was not in fact applied. There was no evidence the claimant was prevented from taking breaks. Mr Dobe asked about the length of breaks but did not prevent the claimant from taking them.

Claims relating to PCPs applied before 17 January 2023 (requirement to lift heavy mail, failure to communicate adjustments, toilet access in 2018) were struck out as outside the time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The PCP alleged (requiring the claimant only to use the toilet at break times on 26-27 January 2023) was not in fact applied. There was no evidence the claimant was required to use the toilet only at break times or that he was prevented from taking breaks.