1. Mr P Martin 2. Mr R Stewart 3. Mr G Rogers 4. Mr I Vermiglio v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024

The respondent dismissed the four claimants for conduct after they and other postal workers took breaks in the Swan car park and after issues arose about what was said following their suspensions. The tribunal accepted that conduct was the reason for dismissal and that it was a potentially fair reason, but found that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation for key allegations about breaching instructions on breaks, intentionally delaying mail, and causing negative social media comments.

The tribunal found weaknesses in the investigation and decision-making. It found that the respondent had not adequately investigated what instructions had been given about breaks, had not properly considered the established practice of taking breaks away from the office, had not resolved important conflicts in evidence, and had not adequately addressed differences in sanctions applied to other employees involved in the same events. The appeal corrected the intentional delay allegation but did not cure the wider procedural and substantive unfairness.

For the first, second and third claimants, the tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable grounds to conclude they had not told the truth about meeting colleagues at McDonalds after suspension, but held that dismissal was still outside the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances, including their long clean service and the wider defects in the process. For the fourth claimant, the tribunal found the evidence on the McDonalds allegation insufficient and considered the inconsistency of sanction especially significant.

The tribunal held that the dismissals were unfair and that there was insufficient evidence to find the claimants would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed. It found contributory conduct by the first, second and third claimants in relation to the McDonalds issue and ordered a 25% reduction to their basic and compensatory awards, but no reduction for the fourth claimant.