Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022

The Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct under section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant admitted placing chewing gum on a customer's property, driving without a seatbelt in rural areas, and leaving mail in his vehicle, but the Tribunal found material weaknesses in the Respondent's investigation and procedure.

The Tribunal found that the initial investigation breached the Respondent's own policy, including by not giving the Claimant the evidence before questioning him and not giving him an opportunity to consult a union representative. It also found that the Respondent did not adequately investigate the Claimant's case that the seatbelt and mail-security practices were common, known to management, and not normally treated as disciplinary matters. The third allegation was effectively discounted at appeal, and the Tribunal found that the second would similarly have required discounting if reasonably investigated.

The Tribunal held that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. It found that the appeal did not cure the earlier defects and instead added to the procedural unfairness. For remedy, it made no Polkey reduction and no ACAS uplift, but reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 25% for contributory conduct because the Claimant had admitted wrongdoing in relation to the first allegation and accepted that some sanction short of dismissal would have been appropriate.