Case 2601330/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Dawson v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601330/2022
- Decision date
- 3 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mr Edmonson, Mr Tansley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Dawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's disability-related harassment complaint and discrimination arising from disability complaint because they were not presented within the applicable time limit, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also dismissed the complaints of victimisation, detriment for making a protected disclosure, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, and indirect discrimination because they were not well-founded.
The tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered Royal Mail Group Ltd to pay the claimant £985.25. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records only the outcomes and award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Dismissed because the complaint of harassment related to disability was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of discrimination arising from disability because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of indirect discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. The protected characteristic for this indirect discrimination complaint is not expressly stated in that sentence, but the judgment otherwise identifies the discrimination complaints as disability-related. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £985
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.