Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally flawed and substantively unfair. The dismissing manager failed to properly investigate the claimant's account of the rear door being secured, rejected requests for additional CCTV evidence, and wrongly relied on a confused prior warning and perceived lack of remorse. The conclusion that leaving the door unlocked briefly while reversing constituted gross misconduct was unreasonable, and dismissal for a first incident of a missing parcel was outside the range of reasonable responses.
Withdrawn by claimant by email on 9 April 2025 and confirmed at the final hearing on 21 May 2025.
Facts
The claimant was a delivery driver for Royal Mail dismissed for gross misconduct on 3 January 2024 following an incident on 18 September 2023 where a parcel containing air rifles went missing during his delivery round. The dismissal was based on two findings: losing a parcel while on route and failing to secure his vehicle (leaving the rear door unlocked) contrary to security policy. The claimant had mental health issues and was supported by a CWU representative throughout. He appealed the dismissal but it was upheld by Ms Rees on 28 February 2024.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. While the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the parcel was lost under the claimant's control, the dismissing manager failed to properly investigate the claimant's explanation about the rear door being unlocked only briefly while reversing at the delivery gate, refused requests for additional CCTV evidence, and wrongly relied on a confused prior warning and an erroneous perception of lack of remorse. The tribunal found dismissal for a first incident was outside the range of reasonable responses and the finding of gross misconduct regarding the rear door was unreasonable without proper factual investigation.
Practical note
Even where an employer broadly follows ACAS procedures, a dismissal can be unfair if the dismissing manager fails to properly investigate the employee's account, refuses reasonable requests for additional evidence, and allows irrelevant or flawed factors (such as a confused prior warning or misperceived lack of remorse) to tip the decision towards dismissal rather than a lesser sanction.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2402027/2024
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- C&D driver / Customer Services Provider
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep