Mr Sean Holmes v Royal Mail Group plc AT A FULL HEARING BY CVP — 2021

Mr Sean Holmes was employed by Royal Mail as a postman and the tribunal accepted that he had PTSD and that the respondent knew of his disability. The tribunal found that he had previously been placed on rehabilitative duties, that occupational health reports recommended a phased return and a stress risk assessment, and that the reports did not indicate he was a danger to colleagues. After an altercation in August 2019 and a series of text messages to Mrs Ellis, including five that were abusive, he was suspended and later summarily dismissed by Mrs Thompson on 14 January 2020. His appeal was dismissed by Mr Brown on 25 February 2020.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that, although there was a genuine belief in misconduct, the investigation was not reasonable and the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. Mrs Thompson did not provide the claimant with all of the evidence before his conduct meeting, did not obtain the notes relied on from Mrs Ellis before that interview, refused to re-interview him after he challenged the notes, and took into account matters that were not relevant to the text-message allegation. The tribunal also found that she relied on her own interpretation of occupational health evidence. The appeal did not cure those defects because Mr Brown did not treat it as a true rehearing and did not re-interview Mrs Ellis or otherwise carry out further relevant investigation.

The section 13 direct disability discrimination claim was dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had been treated less favourably than an appropriate comparator would have been treated. The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 was dismissed as out of time. The section 15 disability discrimination claim succeeded because the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, namely the claimant's conduct, and the respondent had not shown that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The tribunal noted the absence of a stress risk assessment, the failure to follow the respondent's Conduct Policy and the ACAS Code, and the absence of evidence that the claimant was dangerous. No evidence on remedy was heard, so the tribunal directed that a remedy hearing be listed.