Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found that while the respondent failed to adequately investigate and provide an outcome to the claimant's complaint, this failure was due to organisational and procedural breakdown rather than disability. The respondent established that the failure arose from system failures, personal pressures, and oversight, not because of the claimant's disability.
The Tribunal found that although the claimant was subjected to unfavourable treatment through the failure to progress his complaint, the causative link required under section 15 was not established. The claimant's heightened vulnerability and increased anxiety arising from his disability did not operate on the mind of the decision-maker; the failure was due to managerial oversight rather than anything arising from the claimant's disability.
Facts
The claimant, a driver with a heart condition employed by Royal Mail since 2019, alleged he was indecently assaulted by a colleague (who was also a union representative) on 19 June 2023. He reported the incident immediately and believed it was being investigated as a grievance. The matter was escalated to senior management but was never progressed or concluded, leaving the claimant without any outcome for over six months. The claimant experienced deteriorating mental health, workplace ostracism, and eventually took medical retirement in November 2024.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed both claims. While accepting the respondent failed to adequately investigate and resolve the complaint, the Tribunal found this failure was due to managerial oversight and system failures rather than the claimant's disability. The causative link required for both direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability was not established. However, the Tribunal criticized the respondent's poor handling of the case and its failure to support a vulnerable disabled employee.
Practical note
Poor handling of workplace complaints and failure to communicate with vulnerable employees, while potentially unfair and distressing, does not automatically constitute disability discrimination without evidence that the treatment was because of or arose in consequence of the disability.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000752/2024
- Decision date
- 2 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Driver
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No