Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant requested a move from night shift driving MGVs to day shift in Collections in August 2021, and the respondent moved him almost immediately on a temporary basis, making it permanent in February 2022. The purported PCP (requirement to work night shifts) was not a PCP as it was his contractual job. Even if it were a PCP, the respondent made the adjustment the claimant requested at the appropriate time.
The claimant alleged harassment related to disability based on four acts. The tribunal found: (1) he was allowed to appeal the RTA blameworthiness finding, albeit with delay; (2) potential disciplinary action was related to the RTA and blameworthiness, not his depression; (3) his continued suspension from driving was due to the unresolved conduct issue arising from the RTA, not his disability. The claimant failed to shift the burden of proof, and even if he had, the respondent's explanations were unrelated to his depression.
Facts
The claimant, a long-serving Royal Mail driver, was moved from night shift driving MGVs to day shift Collections in August 2021 at his request due to anxiety and depression. Following a road traffic accident in October 2022, he was found blameworthy and suspended from driving. He alleged the respondent failed to allow him to appeal the blameworthiness finding, attempted to discipline him improperly, contacted him about wage overpayment after a suicide attempt, and failed to return him to driving duties. The tribunal found the respondent did allow an RTA appeal (albeit delayed), that potential disciplinary action arose from the RTA and not his disability, and his continued suspension was due to unresolved conduct issues.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant was not disabled by reason of stress at the material time. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent moved him from night shifts to day shifts almost immediately upon request in August 2021. The harassment claims failed because the claimant did not shift the burden of proof, and the respondent's actions (allowing an appeal, considering disciplinary action, and maintaining driving suspension) were all related to the RTA and blameworthiness findings, not to his disability of depression.
Practical note
A claimant alleging harassment related to disability must establish facts from which the tribunal could infer discrimination; procedural delays and legitimate management actions arising from a road traffic accident and blameworthiness findings are not harassment related to disability absent evidence linking the treatment to the disability itself.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201250/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Operational Postal Grade/Driver
- Service
- 29 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No