Case 1401254/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401254/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought multiple claims alleging that Royal Mail Group Limited offered unlawful inducements contrary to section 145A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claims concerned incentive schemes offered between 21 November 2022 and 4 December 2022 during a period of industrial action.
The respondent applied for the Burgess and Aitchison claims to be struck out and dismissed in light of the Supreme Court decision in Mercer. The claimants' representatives did not oppose the application and accepted that the tribunal and lower courts were bound by Mercer so far as it applied domestically.
The tribunal recorded that the claims were solely for inducements relating to union membership or activities under section 145A TULRCA and struck out and dismissed them. No remedy award was stated in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Claims solely for inducements relating to union membership or activities under section 145A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were struck out and dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 145A TULRCA
- section 146 TULRCA
- Article 11
- section 3 Human Rights Act 1998
- section 4 Human Rights Act 1998
- rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Mercer
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.