Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

The tribunal found that the refusal to allow C to return to work did not meet the s.26 test. Neither PC's conduct at the investigation meeting nor SD's conduct at the disciplinary hearing or in the dismissal letter amounted to harassment. Even assuming C was disabled, the conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating C's dignity or creating a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment when considered objectively and in all the circumstances.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not subject the claimant to a detriment because he did protected acts. The delay in addressing grievances, the failure to hold meetings, and the manner of dealing with the appeal were not because C had raised previous discrimination claims or grievances, but were due to policy constraints, HR advice, and the managers not being aware of C's protected acts.

The tribunal found that R dismissed C for conduct (a potentially fair reason), but R did not carry out a reasonable investigation or procedure. The investigation into Notification 2 was flawed because PC, who was the complainant and a witness, investigated his own allegation. The investigation into Notifications 1 and 3 was unreasonable because R failed to seek medical clarification on whether the fit notes and OH reports applied to any work or just C's contracted duties, and failed to obtain medical evidence on whether taxi driving was incompatible with C's reported symptoms. The belief in C's guilt was not formed on reasonable grounds.

The tribunal found C was guilty of conduct prior to his dismissal which would have entitled R to terminate his employment summarily. C undertook remunerative work during contracted hours with R in respect of which he was receiving sick pay, which was sufficiently serious conduct to justify summary dismissal.