Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed following an incident where he grabbed a colleague's fleece and shouted at him while under extreme stress about his brother's urgent medical need. The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer relied on allegations never put to the claimant and failed to properly consider his significant mitigation evidence (44 years' exemplary service, his brother's critical illness, the claimant's irrational state due to stress). While the claimant's conduct was blameworthy, the tribunal concluded a fair process would not have resulted in dismissal given the exceptional mitigating circumstances.
Facts
Claimant worked 44 years as a postperson for Royal Mail with an exemplary record. In April 2023, while under extreme stress about his brother's urgent medical need (he was sole carer), he was prevented from leaving work. He grabbed a colleague's fleece through a van window and shouted at him in an attempt to leave. He was dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal at liability found the dismissal unfair because the employer relied on allegations never put to the claimant and failed to properly consider his substantial mitigation evidence.
Decision
The tribunal ordered reinstatement, finding it practicable and just despite 10% contributory fault. The employer's claimed loss of trust and confidence was not rationally held—it was based on irrational characterisation of conduct as 'an attack', suspicions unsupported by evidence, and refusal to accept clear mitigation. The exceptional circumstances (44 years' service, extreme stress, unlikely recurrence) justified reinstatement. Back pay awarded with 10% ACAS uplift for procedural failures, reduced 10% for contributory fault.
Practical note
Employers cannot defeat reinstatement by asserting loss of trust and confidence based on irrational views or unsupported suspicions; tribunals will test whether objections are genuinely and rationally held, and exceptional service/mitigation may justify reinstatement even with contributory fault.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
Claimant grabbed a colleague's fleece and shouted at him during a stressful incident. While there was significant mitigation (brother's urgent medical need, extreme stress, 44 years' exemplary service), the tribunal found this blameworthy conduct contributed 10% to the dismissal.
Respondent breached ACAS Code: used allegations not part of the disciplinary charge, failed to put allegations to the claimant, did not provide relevant witness statement. Serious breaches but not a sham process as employer had genuine belief in misconduct and sought to have a fair process.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2215285/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Operational Postal Grade (OPG) postperson
- Service
- 44 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister