Case 2409302/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Emmett-Newman v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409302/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Emmett-Newman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a comment was posted from her Facebook account on the Communication Workers Union Facebook page. The respondent treated the matter as a breach of its business standards and social media policy, and the claimant denied making the post, saying her husband had posted it using her account.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had shown the reason for dismissal was conduct and that its belief in the claimant's misconduct was genuine. It considered concerns about the involvement of the dismissing manager in earlier stages, but found the investigation was within the band of reasonable responses and that any irregularities at the dismissal stage were rectified by an independent appeal.
The Tribunal found the appeal was conducted reasonably, with the claimant represented and given opportunities to respond to the evidence and to provide further information. It concluded that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Kent County Council v Gilham
- Burchell
- band or range of reasonable responses
- Burdett v Aviva Employment Services Ltd
- Graham v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jobcentre Plus)
- Tayeh v Barchester Healthcare Ltd
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- balance of probabilities
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.