Cases6004558/2024

Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

13 January 2025Before Employment Judge HeydonLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation that the claimant had assaulted a manager, been aggressive/intimidating, and refused reasonable instructions. Despite flaws in the initial investigation by Mr Shore, the appeal process conducted by Mr Potter was thorough, independent and reasonable. Dismissal for physical assault in the workplace was within the range of reasonable responses even considering the claimant's 22 years of clear service.

Facts

The claimant, a Royal Mail employee since 2002, was summarily dismissed following an incident on 19 February 2024 where he refused to follow instructions to change tasks, shouted repeatedly at managers, and was alleged to have pushed his line manager Shabaaz Khan in the stomach. He admitted refusing instructions and aggressive behaviour but denied the assault. The initial investigation by Stephen Shore (who had prior involvement) was flawed, failing to adequately pursue CCTV evidence and lacking separation between investigator and decision-maker. The claimant was dismissed on 12 April 2024 for three allegations: assault, intimidating behaviour, and refusing reasonable instructions.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. Although the initial investigation had significant flaws including apparent bias and inadequate pursuit of CCTV evidence, the appeal conducted by independent case manager Steven Potter constituted a reasonable investigation. Potter re-interviewed witnesses, considered all evidence afresh, and gave detailed reasoning. Dismissal for workplace assault was found to be within the range of reasonable responses despite the claimant's 22 years of clear service.

Practical note

A flawed initial investigation can be cured by a thorough and independent appeal process that amounts to a rehearing, particularly where the appeal manager conducts fresh investigations and provides detailed reasoning addressing all points raised by the employee.

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(2)(b)ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.98(1)

Case details

Case number
6004558/2024
Decision date
13 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
operational postal grade
Service
22 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No