Case 2301723/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Shepherd v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301723/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beckett Date
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Shepherd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Royal Mail Group Limited as an LGV 1 driver and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after obtaining a customer's complaint details and contacting the customer directly. The respondent concluded that he had used the customer's personal information without authority and had contacted the customer under the guise of an independent reviewer in an attempt to resolve a complaint made against himself.
The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely dismissed the claimant for misconduct, based on unauthorised use of the customer's personal details and dishonest contact with the customer. It found that the respondent was entitled to conclude that the customer did not know he was dealing directly with the driver complained about, and that the claimant's conduct breached the respondent's policies.
The tribunal found that the investigation, conduct hearing and appeal were reasonable. It held that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief, followed a fair procedure, and that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant was therefore fairly dismissed within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- sections 98(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchill
- Post Office v Foley
- band of reasonable responses
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.