Cases3309413/2023

Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

3 March 2025Before Employment Judge Quillon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found procedural defects in the respondent's dismissal procedure but concluded that the dismissal as a whole was not unfair. The claimant's reconsideration application challenging this finding was refused.

Direct Discrimination(race)failed

The tribunal decided on the facts that alleged racial words were not used. The claimant alleged harassment related to race on 8 July incident but the tribunal rejected this claim.

Harassment(race)failed

The tribunal found that the alleged words relied upon for harassment were not used. The tribunal also considered whether the 8 July incident constituted harassment related to race even without the alleged words and concluded it did not.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The claimant raised section 15 discrimination arising from disability but the tribunal addressed the complaints presented and rejected them. Claims also failed on time limits.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal explained what reasonable adjustments complaint it was addressing and why it failed. Claims also failed on time limits.

Facts

The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, harassment and disability discrimination against Royal Mail. The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the dismissal was not unfair despite some procedural defects, and that alleged racial harassment did not occur. The claimant was suspended on 4 February 2023 in connection with alleged misconduct involving amendment of a leave form. Some claims also failed on time limit grounds.

Decision

The tribunal refused the claimant's reconsideration application on the basis it had no reasonable prospects of success. The application was an attempt to re-litigate matters already determined, and included new evidence that should have been presented at the original hearing. The tribunal confirmed its findings that the dismissal was not unfair and that alleged discriminatory words were not used.

Practical note

A reconsideration application will be refused where it amounts to no more than an attempt to re-argue the case or introduce evidence that could and should have been presented at the original hearing, particularly where the applicant was a litigant in person given adequate time to prepare.

Legal authorities cited

Drysdale v Department of TransportOutasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11Ebury Partners UK Limited v Mr M Acton Davis [2023] EAT 40Taylor v OCS Group

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.136

Case details

Case number
3309413/2023
Decision date
3 March 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes

Claimant representation

Represented
No