Case 3313411/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Strutt v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313411/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms C M Baggs, Mr J Appleton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Strutt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who is profoundly Deaf, brought claims arising from the respondent's handling of his bullying and harassment grievance and its later decision to dismiss him for gross misconduct. The tribunal considered complaints about the provision of BSL interpreters and support with written documents, and complaints about dismissal for alleged breaches of confidentiality, dishonesty and collusion.
The disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal found the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was not made out, and also dismissed the claim of discrimination arising from disability in relation to the dismissal.
The unfair dismissal claim was upheld. The tribunal found that the disciplinary allegations were insufficiently clear, the respondent did not properly investigate what the claimant had shared with Ms Watts and when, and it did not fully explore the allegations of dishonesty and collusion. It found that a fair process would have taken a further four weeks and that there was a 75% chance the respondent would then have dismissed the claimant, with no additional deduction for contributory fault.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the disciplinary allegations were insufficiently clear, the respondent did not carry out as much investigation as was reasonable into the alleged misconduct, and it had no reasonable grounds to conclude that the claimant had acted in collusion. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim concerning auxiliary aids, including BSL interpretation and support with documents during the grievance and disciplinary processes, was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim concerning dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
23 references- s.20(5) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
- Hardy & Hansons plc v Lax
- Land Registry v Houghton
- Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- BHS v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey deduction
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rao v Civil Aviation Authority
- Wilkinson v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
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.