Claimant v P Summers v Royal Mail Group Ltd — 2021

The Claimant, a Royal Mail Delivery Postman with about 21 years' service, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after a mail theft incident on 28 February 2020 involving a van that had been electronically locked. The tribunal accepted that the Claimant consistently said he had locked the vehicle with the fob and heard the locks click, and noted that there were no training records before it showing he had been told he also had to physically check the doors by pulling the handles.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell and A v B, the tribunal held that the Respondent's investigation was materially deficient. It found that Royal Mail did not sufficiently pursue obvious lines of enquiry, including checking whether there had been reports of electronic entry into Royal Mail vans, following up the suspicious vehicle with false number plates, or making fuller enquiries through its security resources. The tribunal said these shortcomings meant the Respondent did not have a sufficient basis for the belief that the vehicle had been left insecure.

The tribunal also rejected the Respondent's alternative case that dismissal was justified because the Claimant had not physically checked the door locks or had not shown remorse. It found that the Claimant had given a consistent account and had not been told, on the evidence before the tribunal, that he needed to check the handles after electronically locking the van. It also noted that Mr Welch's appeal decision made no reference to the remorse point, and concluded that it had not been properly taken into account.

The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded, and the tribunal found that the Claimant did not contribute to his dismissal. Because the Claimant sought reinstatement, the case was adjourned to a later hearing to determine reinstatement under sections 114 and 116(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and compensation if reinstatement was not practicable. No monetary award was determined in this judgment.