Case 3313271/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gill v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313271/2023
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms C Bailey, Ms F Tankard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Gill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason of trade union activity. It also dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint of discrimination for a reason arising from disability. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested, so no detailed findings or remedy figures are set out in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment states that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason of trade union activity was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination for a reason arising from disability was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the short judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.