Case 1805563/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Adams v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1805563/2018
- Decision date
- 18 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms C Marsters, Mr D Clay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal upheld two pay claims. The Respondent conceded that overtime pay remained due, and judgment was entered for unpaid overtime under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £1,821.04. It also accepted that 18.1 hours of holiday pay was outstanding on termination, and the Tribunal awarded £231.72. The Tribunal dismissed the sick pay claim, finding that the industrial injury sick pay exception did not apply because there was no evidence that the Department for Work and Pensions had accepted the absence as due to an industrial accident, and that the Claimant had received the sick pay to which he was entitled under the normal policy.
The automatically unfair dismissal claim failed. The Tribunal found that the only identified assertion of statutory rights was the Employment Tribunal claim presented on 18 May 2018, but the dismissal decision had already been made before the Respondent was notified of that claim. It therefore did not find that the dismissal was because the Claimant had asserted or brought proceedings to enforce a statutory right.
The direct race discrimination and race harassment claims were dismissed. Many allegations were out of time and the Tribunal declined to extend time, but it also considered the allegations substantively. It found no discriminatory conduct, no continuing act, and no facts from which it could infer that race was the reason for the treatment complained of or that the conduct was related to race for the purposes of harassment.
The victimisation claim also failed. The Tribunal accepted that some complaints made by the Claimant were protected acts and that the initial burden of proof was discharged in relation to dismissal. It accepted the Respondent's explanation, however, that the dismissal was for matters separable from the protected acts, including its conclusions about the complaints, the Claimant's conduct towards colleagues, communications with managers, and his failure to engage with the disciplinary process.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal for assertion of a statutory right under s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid overtime pay under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded in the sum of £1,821.04. | Upheld | — | £1,821 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid sick pay under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed; the Tribunal found the Claimant had received the contractual sick pay to which he was entitled. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay accrued but unpaid at termination succeeded in the sum of £231.72. | Upheld | — | £232 |
| Breach of contract | The pleaded breach of contract claim concerned outstanding wages on termination and was dealt with through the Tribunal's conclusions on overtime, sick pay and holiday pay rather than as a separately quantified contract award. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,053
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Barton v Investec / Igen v Wong burden of proof guidance
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal harassment threshold
- Nagarajan significant influence test
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors separability principle
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd
- Panayiotou v Chief Constable of Hampshire Police
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.