Mr E Adenigbagbe v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2026

The tribunal unanimously dismissed Mr E Adenigbagbe's claims against Royal Mail Group Limited for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct race and disability discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation. He worked part time sorting parcels on the night shift. His initial absence involved self-isolation and pancreatitis, for which the respondent accepted there were good reasons. Following a brief return to work in March 2022 and a period of special leave, he remained absent and was dismissed in July 2022 for failing to attend work without a reasonable explanation.

The claim was presented on 3 October 2022, with ACAS early conciliation beginning and ending that day. The tribunal applied a time-limit cut-off of 4 July 2022. Complaints concerning occupational-health referrals and the handling of grievances in 2020/2021 were separate events, without a substantial link to the dismissal. It declined a just and equitable extension because there was no good reason for the delay, contemporaneous documents were limited and witnesses had difficulty recalling events. The disputed events in 2022 were sufficiently linked to the dismissal to be considered together; alternatively, their evidential overlap justified extending time.

The dispute followed a telephone call from Plant Manager Kenneth Coke on 1 March 2022 about the claimant's return to work. Mr Coke complained that the claimant had been aggressive and abusive. The tribunal did not decide whether that description was correct, but found that Mr Coke made the complaint in good faith. The claimant sought a written statement from Mr Coke and declined to attend several fact-finding meetings. The tribunal found that the relevant procedure required documents to be shared at the start of those meetings, rather than beforehand. The eventual disciplinary charge concerned the claimant's absence, not his conduct during the telephone call.

Applying the Burchell test and the band of reasonable responses, the tribunal found that Royal Mail genuinely and reasonably believed the claimant had committed misconduct. It found that his refusal to return rested on his mistaken belief that he was entitled to Mr Coke's statement. He supplied no medical evidence supporting his stated inability to return because of his mental health, even after the disciplinary interview and a further request for a fit note. The disciplinary procedure was fair, and Mr Dobe considered the claimant's clean conduct record and alternatives to dismissal. The claimant did not use his right of appeal. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found actual gross misconduct in his absence without a good reason and failure to attend meetings, justifying dismissal without notice.

The direct race and disability discrimination claims failed because the tribunal found that the allegations, disciplinary process and dismissal were unrelated to the claimant's race or mental health. There was no evidence that Mr Coke knew about the claimant's mental health. A hypothetical comparator who refused to attend work and meetings in the same circumstances, without medical evidence supporting the absence, would not have been treated differently. Danny Sullivan, the named comparator, had left through voluntary redundancy in 2016 and had not faced disciplinary action; his circumstances did not support the comparison.