Mr P Duffy v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 2500888/2021
| Judgment Date | 03 November 2021 |
| Citation | 2500888/2021 |
| Date | 03 November 2021 |
| Published date | 24 November 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2500888/2021
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant: Mr P Duffy
Respondent: Royal Mail Group Limited
Heard at: Newcastle Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 6 and 20 October 2021
Before: Employment Judge Morris (sitting alone)
Representation:
Claimant: Mr A Mugliston of counsel
Respondent: Mr S Harte, solicitor
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s complaint under
Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that he was dismissed by the
respondent (in that the contract under which he was employed was terminated by the
respondent, as provided for in section 95(1)(a) of that Act) and that his dismissal was
unfair contrary to Section 94 of that Act, by reference to Section 98 of that Act, is not
well-founded.
REASONS
Representation and evidence
1. The claimant was represented by Mr A Mugliston of counsel who called the
claimant to give evidence. The respondent was represented by Mr S Harte,
solicitor who called two employees of the respondent to give evidence on its
behalf: Mr T Carver, Delivery Office Manager and Mr S Walker, Independent
Casework Manager.
2. This was a remote hearing, which had not been objected to by the parties. It was
conducted by way of the Cloud Video Platform as it was not practicable to
Case Number: 2500888/2021
2
convene a face-to-face hearing, no one had requested such a hearing and all the
issues could be dealt with by video conference.
3. The evidence in chief of or on behalf of the parties was given by way of written
witness statements. I also had before me a bundle of agreed documents
comprising in excess of 257 pages.
The claimant’s complaint
4. The claimant complained that his dismissal by the respondent was unfair being
contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996
Act”).
The issues
5. The issues in this case can be summarised as follows:
5.1 Was the claimant dismissed? The respondent accepted that he had been.
5.2 Has the respondent shown what was the reason for the claimant’s dismissal?
The respondent asserted conduct.
5.3 Was that reason a potentially fair reason within sections 98(1) or (2) of the
1996 Act? Conduct, if established, is such a potentially fair reason.
5.4 If the reason was a potentially fair reason for dismissal, did the respondent
act reasonably or unreasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason
for the dismissal of the claimant in accordance with section 98(4) of the 1996
Act? This would include whether (taking account of the Acas Code of
Practice: Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2009) and the guidance in
British Home Stores Limited v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379, as qualified in Boys
and Girls Welfare Society v McDonald [1996] IRLR129) a reasonable
procedure had been followed by the respondent in connection with the
dismissal and whether (in accordance with the guidance in Iceland Frozen
Foods Limited -v- Jones [1982] IRLR 439, Post Office v Foley [2000] IRLR
827) and Graham v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Job
Centre Plus) [2012] EWCA Civ 903) the decision to dismiss the claimant fell
within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer in such
circumstances.
5.5 In this respect, the Tribunal would, however, apply the guidance set out in
Burchell having regard to the fact that the statutory ‘test’ of fairness, which is
now found in section 98(4) of the 1996 Act, had been amended in 1980 such
that neither party now has a burden of proof in that regard.
5.6 With regard to the above questions, in accordance with the guidance in
Burchell and Graham, I would consider whether at the stage at which the
decision was made on behalf of the respondent to dismiss the claimant its
managers who, respectively, made that decision and upheld that decision on
appeal had in mind reasonable grounds, after as much investigation into the
To continue reading
Request your trial