Case 2501150/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Kirby v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501150/2020
- Decision date
- 19 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- Newcastle CFC
- Panel members
- Mrs D Winter, Mr G Gallagher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Kirby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a postman and was dismissed following events on 5 to 7 October 2019, including refusing to commence his delivery round, Facebook posts about colleagues, and behaviour towards managers. The Tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds, after a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had committed misconduct. It found dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The respondent accepted that the claimant had a disability arising from stress, anxiety and depression. The Tribunal found the claimant's conduct was not involuntarily caused by his mental health condition and accepted occupational health evidence that he retained capacity and control over his actions and choices. It dismissed the section 15 claim and also found that suspension and dismissal would in any event be proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of requiring employees to follow policies and codes of conduct.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant's anonymous helpline call amounted to a qualifying and protected disclosure. It found, however, that the relevant decision-makers did not know the claimant had made the call and that the disclosure had no influence on the decisions to suspend, dismiss or reject the appeal. The reasonable adjustment complaints were dismissed on the merits and, in several respects, as out of time. The victimisation complaints were also dismissed because the alleged protected acts had no influence on the dismissal or appeal decision.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. The Tribunal found the respondent dismissed for conduct and acted within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. The Tribunal accepted the anonymous helpline call was a qualifying and protected disclosure, but found it had no influence on the dismissal decision. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaints. Alleged detriments included being sent home, suspended, dismissed and having the appeal dismissed. The Tribunal found no material influence from the protected disclosure and found some alleged detriments pre-dated the disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal found no substantial disadvantage or no effective adjustment on the merits, and also found the complaints out of time with no just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found the claimant's conduct was not something arising in consequence of disability; alternatively, suspension and dismissal were proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379
- band of reasonable responses
- Royal Mail Group Limited v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
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.