Mr A Hayward v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2021

The claimant was dismissed after refusing an instruction to load the 90% BSI for route GL101 onto his van. The tribunal found that the instruction was to load the BSI, not to deliver every stop, and that the instruction was consistent with the Blue Print Agreement and the respondent's accepted practice. It found that the claimant refused the instruction, left the site, and did not return after being advised by Mr Day that leaving could be viewed as abandoning his duties.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. Although dismissal was described as at the harsher end of the permissible band, the tribunal found it was within the band of reasonable responses because of the claimant's conduct on the day and the respondent's conclusions about his insight and remorse. The alleged procedural failings concerning disclosure of Mr Mabbs' statement and the suspension process did not make the dismissal unfair; the tribunal also found, in the alternative, a 100% certainty that dismissal would have occurred if corrected.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal found that comparator evidence did not establish primary facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. It accepted that differences in the work taken out by drivers were explained by experience and managerial discretion, and found the reason for the instruction was the claimant's indication that he had not loaded sufficient parcels for the route. It found the dismissal was because of the claimant's conduct in relation to the instruction and disciplinary process, not because of race.