Case 2304519/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Butler v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304519/2018
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Butler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was a Delivery Office Manager at the respondent's Tooting Delivery Office. The respondent dismissed him summarily after findings concerning undelivered door-to-door mail, failure to manage operational compliance, and failure accurately to report undelivered volumes and follow the returns process. The first formal allegation, concerning a notice in the customer service point, was not upheld by the respondent's decision-maker.
The tribunal found that the respondent had shown a conduct reason for dismissal and that the decision-makers held a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct on reasonable grounds after as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It rejected the claimant's argument that he had been treated inconsistently with others, finding that the evidence did not show truly comparable cases or that his case fell within the relevant categories for disparity of treatment.
The tribunal found no procedural failure rendering the dismissal unfair. It held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and that the respondent was entitled to find gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. For the notice pay claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's sustained failures amounted to a breach of contract undermining trust and confidence such that the respondent was no longer required to retain him in employment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was for notice pay. The tribunal found the claimant was not wrongly dismissed and dismissed the notice pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
23 references- s.98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins 1977 ICR 662
- British Home Stores v Burchell 1980 ICR 303
- Sheffield Health & Social Care NHS Foundation Trust v Crabtree [2009] UKEAT 0331
- ACAS Code of Practice of 2015 on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.207 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Sainsburys Supermarkets v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1982] IRLR 430
- Post Office v Foley [2000] IRLR 827
- British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] IRLR 563
- Walpole v Vauxhall Motors Ltd 1998 EWCA Civ 706
- Cain v Western Health Authority [1990] IRLR 168
- Hadjioannou v Coral Casinos Ltd [1981] IRLR 352
- Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority [1995] IRLR 305
- Epstein v Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead UKEAT/0250/07
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- Delaney v Staples 1992 ICR 483
- Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288
- Shaw v B & W Group Ltd UKEAT/0583/11
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.