Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The respondent had a genuine belief the claimant harassed a witness (Ms Sharma) in relation to his tribunal claim on 8 May 2022 and 29 January 2023. The investigation was within the range of reasonable responses, despite some procedural failings which were rectified on appeal. The respondent reasonably concluded the claimant attempted to intimidate Ms Sharma to change her witness statement.
The tribunal found the claimant's internal grievances did not amount to protected acts as they concerned part-time worker detriments, not protected characteristics under the Equality Act. While the tribunal claim dated 14 August 2021 was accepted as a protected act, there was no evidential link between this and the disciplinary process. The claimant was dismissed solely because the respondent genuinely believed he had harassed Ms Sharma, not because he brought a tribunal claim.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a colleague, Ms Sharma, complained he harassed and intimidated her in relation to evidence she provided in his ongoing tribunal claim about a 2021 workplace incident. The respondent alleged the claimant waited outside work for Ms Sharma on 8 May 2022 and, along with his co-claimant Mr Ellahi, attempted to pressure her to change her witness statement. The claimant denied the allegations, claiming Ms Sharma had asked to speak to him. He was suspended on 5 February 2023, investigated, and dismissed on 7 July 2023 after a disciplinary process.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had harassed Ms Sharma, conducted a reasonable investigation despite some procedural flaws (which were rectified on appeal), and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for an employee with 20 years' service. The victimisation claim failed because the claimant's internal grievances did not amount to protected acts (they concerned part-time worker issues not protected characteristics), and there was no evidential link between his tribunal claim and his dismissal - he was dismissed solely for the harassment allegations.
Practical note
A dismissal for witness intimidation in relation to ongoing tribunal proceedings can be fair even where the employee denies the conduct, provided the employer conducts a reasonable investigation and has genuine reasonable grounds for belief in the misconduct; procedural flaws rectified on appeal may not render a dismissal unfair.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201684/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No