Member E Farrell Tribunal Member R Taggart Mr L Weston v Represented by Mr B McKinlay - Solicitor Royal Mail Group Ltd — 2025

Mr Weston worked as a postman for Royal Mail from 2007 until his dismissal with effect from 16 September 2023. The tribunal found that he had longstanding symptoms of depression and anxiety, together with hip pain, and that the case arose out of disputes over his sickness absence, his attempts to return to work, his return to taxi driving while off sick, and grievances he raised in March, June and August 2023. The dismissal followed disciplinary allegations framed as dishonesty about his capability for work, abusive or aggressive behaviour towards a manager, and receipt of sick pay during an unnecessary absence.

On the disability-related harassment complaint, the tribunal assumed for the purpose of the analysis that Mr Weston was disabled by depression and anxiety, but said it was unnecessary to decide that point because the claim failed on the other elements. It found that the refusals in February, March and April 2023 to permit a return to work were connected to his hip pain and to occupational health advice, not to depression and anxiety. It accepted that the fact-finding meeting with PC on 17 June 2023 was tense and unpleasant, but found the conduct related to PC's belief that Mr Weston had been taxiing, to their poor relationship, and to Mr Weston's perceived confrontational manner, not to disability.

The tribunal also found that SD's questions at the disciplinary hearing on 29 August 2023, and the reasoning in the dismissal letter of 13 September 2023, were unwanted and related in a broad sense to Mr Weston's mental health, but they were asked and written in the context of deciding the disciplinary allegations. It found that SD was genuinely trying to determine the truth of the allegations, not to violate dignity or create a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The dismissal itself fell with the same reasoning, so the harassment complaint was dismissed.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the only protected acts established were Mr Weston's April 2021 tribunal claim and his 3 October 2023 tribunal claim. It found that the 26 June 2023 grievance and the comments made at the appeal hearing did not amount to protected acts. It concluded that Andrew Mullan's delay in dealing with the March grievance was largely before he knew of the October 2023 claim, that his later decisions were not because of protected acts, and that SD was not aware of any protected act when he dealt with the June and August grievances. Although PH knew of the tribunal claims while the appeal was pending, the tribunal found that his delay and appeal outcome were not caused by those claims.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct under section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996, but held that R's investigation and procedure were not reasonable. It found that PC should not have investigated his own allegation about the call on 16 June 2023, that the allegations of abusive language and aggression were insufficiently specified, and that neither PC nor SD properly investigated David Houten's account. It also found that the appeal process did not cure those defects. For Notifications 1 and 3, the tribunal held that R wrongly assumed Mr Weston's fit note and OH report necessarily related to all work, failed to seek clarification from the OH advisor or GP, and failed to investigate whether his taxi driving was incompatible with his health conditions or only with his Royal Mail duties. Applying the Burchell and range of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair.