Mr N Brown v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2026

The claimant, a postal worker at the respondent's Victoria Road depot, made a flexible working request on 4 July 2025. He sought to work Monday to Friday only, stop his afternoon/evening parcel shift, and spread the five hours from that shift across weekday mornings. The respondent refused the request, initially relying on the effect on its ability to meet customer demand, and on appeal also relying on its ability to manage impact on quality and performance.

The tribunal dismissed the complaint under section 80H ERA 1996. It found that the respondent followed the key procedural steps of written request, meeting, outcome and appeal, and that the claimant was allowed to be accompanied. The tribunal accepted that the depot was short of drivers and Sunday workers, that the claimant's contract required driving, parcel shifts and Sunday work, and that alternatives had been considered, including a 30-hour contract, a possible transfer to Govan, and work in the Collections team. It held that the appeal decision on 7 October 2025 was not out of time because the decision period had been extended by verbal agreement to the end of October 2025.

The tribunal also dismissed the section 47E detriment complaint. The alleged acts concerned Mr Bannerman speaking to the claimant on 6 September 2025 about the tone of text messages and asking whether the claimant was trying to goad him after a further message was sent. The tribunal found that Mr Bannerman did not act in an aggressive way when considered objectively, that the later discussion was not a detriment in the legal sense, and that in any event no material connection was shown between the alleged treatment and the claimant's flexible working request.

Both legal complaints were found not to be well founded and the claim was dismissed. No remedy or monetary award was made.