Mr Laurel Blake v Post Office Ltd — 2021

Mr Laurel Blake was employed by Post Office Ltd as a CHD Crew Member from 23 January 2006 to 28 March 2021. He had worked on High Value Mail routes since 2017 after medical advice to avoid heavy lifting. The dispute arose after he complained that union representative Mr Rob Jones had referred to his medical certificate as "dodgy" in front of other staff, which Mr Blake said led colleagues to call him "dodgy sicknote". The matter went through a multi-stage grievance process involving Mr Thorpe, Mrs Pitman and Mr Trowler, with evidence taken from the claimant, Mr Jones and other witnesses.

The tribunal found that Mr Trowler concluded on the balance of probabilities that Mr Jones had used the word "dodgy", but that he was trying to protect the claimant’s position by advising him to obtain an occupational health referral in anticipation of route revisions. It held that the respondent carried out a full, independent and objective investigation, offered mediation, and made recommendations for informal feedback rather than discipline. On that basis the tribunal found no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, referring to Malik v BCCI, and it rejected the criticism of the grievance handling, including the refusal to appoint an external investigator and the refusal to give all the additional time requested for comments.

In any event, the tribunal held that the claimant delayed too long before resigning on 28 February 2021. He had written on 14 October 2020 that he would pursue the matter outside the Post Office, but he then continued working for about four months and there was no later "last straw" identified between that correspondence and his resignation. Applying section 95(1)(c) of the ERA 1996 and Western Excavating v Sharp, the tribunal held that he had affirmed the contract and waived any breach.

The unpaid wages claim was also dismissed. The claimant said he was owed £900 in his final payslip because a pay rise decided in February 2021 should have applied from 1 April 2021, but the tribunal found the respondent’s written policy was explicit that the pay award applied only to those still in employment and not under notice on 31 March. The claimant was therefore not eligible for the payment he claimed.