Case 3314145/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Younus v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314145/2019
- Decision date
- 23 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang
- Venue
- by CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Younus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a postman and was dismissed after a bundle of mail went missing during his delivery round on 12 December 2018. The respondent relied on conduct, including failure to report loss of mail, failure to safeguard mail, and overloading a lightweight trolley. The claimant accepted that he knew he should have told his manager on the day, but said he had made a mistake and had been embarrassed.
The tribunal found that the respondent complied with its own procedures and the ACAS Code of Practice. It accepted that the respondent believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation, including appeal-stage enquiries with employees who had trained or worked with the claimant.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's challenges based on training, normal practice, and what he said his colleague had told him. It found that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, having regard to the importance of mail security and integrity and the findings that the claimant did not report the missing post when he spoke to his manager, later that day, or when he arrived for work the next day.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Foley v Post Office
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- band of reasonable responses
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.