Mr S Shirley v Represented by: Mr D Prentice - Lay Representative Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020

Mr S Shirley, a postal delivery worker, was dismissed by Royal Mail Group Ltd on 16 April 2019 after a customer complaint that he had left two items in her blue bin and had signed for one item in her name. The tribunal accepted that he had done those acts, and found that Royal Mail had a potentially fair reason for dismissal based on conduct within s.98(1) ERA 1996.

The tribunal found that Royal Mail had a genuine and reasonable belief that Mr Shirley had committed misconduct and knew what the correct procedures were. It relied on evidence that he had signed the annual mail integrity briefing attendance sheet on 3 January 2019, that the briefing and earlier management discussions covered door-stepping and leaving items unsecured, and that in the disciplinary and appeal meetings he gave answers showing he knew the proper procedure for items requiring a signature but did not follow it on the day in question. The tribunal rejected his evidence on knowledge and awareness where it was inconsistent with the documents and with what he had said in the internal process.

The tribunal held that the investigation was reasonable. It considered the whole process, including the fact-finding, disciplinary and appeal stages, and noted that Mr Shirley had three opportunities to explain his position and mitigation. Although Kevin Bradford was not interviewed, the tribunal found that this would not have affected the dismissal decision because both dismissing officers treated any alleged arrangement with the customer as incapable of justifying a breach of Royal Mail standards. The tribunal also rejected the arguments that the process was pre-determined, that the complaint should have stopped the delivery round, or that the appeal delay made the dismissal unfair.

On sanction, the tribunal applied the band of reasonable responses test and concluded that dismissal was within that band. It accepted that Royal Mail treated mail security and integrity seriously, that deliberate disregard of security procedures could amount to gross misconduct, and that both dismissing officers took account of Mr Shirley’s long service and clear record. The tribunal also considered comparator cases raised on appeal but found they were not true comparators or were too different on their facts. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim in full.