In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, Mr B Budhwani, was employed by Royal Mail Group as an Operational Postal Grade postman at Anerley Delivery Office for about 30 years. The case arose from allegations that he had removed Door to Door marketing items from his delivery round and left them by a recycling bin. At the disciplinary stage he accepted that he had taken the D2D items from the original box, split them into two boxes, and left them outside the manager’s office, while saying he did not think the unlabelled box was for his round. The tribunal recorded that the dismissing officer, CJ, and the appeal officer, SP, both upheld the misconduct case and the dismissal.

The tribunal applied section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach. It accepted that Royal Mail genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, that the belief was based on reasonable grounds, and that the investigation was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal noted the evidence relied on by the employer, including the claimant’s own account, the location of the boxes, the absence of a label on the box that was allocated to his duty, and the employer’s later interviews with witnesses. It held that there was compelling evidence before the employer and that no further investigation was required.

On gross misconduct, the tribunal relied on the respondent’s conduct policy, which stated that intentional delay of mail could amount to gross misconduct, and held that it was reasonable to treat the allegation in that way. It then found that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, taking into account the seriousness of the allegation, the importance of customer mail, the trust placed in postal workers, and the fact that the dismissing officer considered but rejected a lesser sanction. The tribunal also found the procedure fair, and therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. No compensation or other remedy was awarded.