Case 3300081/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr O Adebiyi & 7 Others (See attached schedule) v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024

Case reference: 3300081/2023
Decision date: 17 October 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Pirani

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr O Adebiyi & 7 Others (See attached schedule)

Respondent

Royal Mail Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claims in the attached schedule were solely for detrimental treatment under s.146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. They arose from an industrial dispute between the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail concerning pay and terms and conditions, during which employees issued non-dismissal detriment claims relating to matters including sick pay, overtime and other pay or detriment issues.

The Tribunal recorded that, following the Supreme Court decision in Mercer, section 146 could not be interpreted as providing protection against sanctions short of dismissal. The respondent applied to strike out all section 146 detriment claims, and the CWU claimants did not dispute the substance of that application, though they sought a reasoned judgment.

Regional Employment Judge Pirani concluded that the section 146 detriment claims exceeded the Employment Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction, had no reasonable prospect of success, and were therefore struck out.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Claims were solely for detrimental treatment under s.146 TULRCA 1992 and were struck out and dismissed under Rule 37(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success following Mercer.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.