Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct (challenging a customer about a complaint, engaging in physical altercation, and failing to report to police). Despite flaws in the initial investigation, the appeal process by Mr Walker was sufficiently thorough, including speaking to Mr Murphy, the customer, and the neighbour. The tribunal concluded that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer might have adopted in the circumstances, even though some employers might have acted differently.
The tribunal found that the claimant spoke to the customer contrary to instruction, but this was not serious enough to amount to repudiatory breach of contract. Critically, the tribunal found as a fact that the claimant punched the customer in self-defence after being attacked, and his injuries were consistent with this account. The tribunal was not persuaded by the statements from the customer and neighbour due to inconsistencies. Acting in self-defence when attacked did not amount to repudiatory breach of contract. The claimant was therefore entitled to 12 weeks' notice pay.
Facts
The claimant, a postal worker with 15 years' service and a clean record, was dismissed for gross misconduct after an incident on 17 February 2024 in which he spoke to a customer about a complaint and was then involved in a physical altercation. The claimant's position was that he asked the customer about a complaint contrary to his manager's instruction, but when the customer later approached him aggressively, the claimant acted in self-defence after being attacked. The claimant did not immediately report the incident to management or police. He sustained injuries requiring sick leave. Following investigation, formal conduct meeting, and appeal, the respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that despite investigative flaws, the appeal process was sufficiently thorough and the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. However, the tribunal upheld the wrongful dismissal claim, finding as a fact that the claimant acted in self-defence and his conduct did not amount to repudiatory breach of contract entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. The claimant was awarded 12 weeks' notice pay plus pension contributions totalling £4,734.36.
Practical note
An employer may fairly dismiss an employee for misconduct involving a physical altercation with a customer even where self-defence is claimed, but summary dismissal without notice requires proof of repudiatory breach—self-defence when attacked does not meet that threshold.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 11.2 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001195/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- operational postal grade
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 16 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister