Background:

The claimant was employed as a postman on a 21 hour part-time contract providing reserve cover.  It was common case that the core duty was to safeguard and deliver mail in a timely fashion.  Each individual is given a catchment area known as a ‘duty’.  On week commencing 1st March 2021 the claimant was given the Rosemount 4 duty as the main duty holder was on annual leave.   To cover this week required more than the 21 hours but the claimant did so on a voluntary basis with the extra hours being treated as overtime.

Part of the workload is to deliver unaddressed mail (largely advertisements from businesses who are customers of the respondent).  This mail is of equal importance to addressed mail and this was reflected with an agreement between the respondent and the Communications Worker Union which allowed for a supplement in pay to allow for the delivery of this unaddressed mail.  It is the employee’s duty to ensure that the unaddressed mail is delivered throughout the week and that would usually be on an incremental basis throughout the week.  They would then be required to ensure that it is arranged for the following day.

The claimant failed to deliver any of the unaddressed mail when working the Rosemount 4 duty. He also failed to prepare it for the delivery in the next day. It was just left without any interaction. The claimant did not inform anyone of this failure.  As a result of this failure, disciplinary procedures were opened against the claimant which led to dismissal.  The claimant brought a case for unfair dismissal.

Outcome:

The claimant’s case for unfair dismissal was dismissed.  The conduct policy of the respondent outlined that deliberate action that caused mail to be delayed could lead to dismissal.  The claimant argued that he had a heavy workload considering that there was Census mail, there were impacts with the pandemic and he had just received the Covid vaccine.  Perhaps quite surprisingly it was agreed that there was misconduct and that the statutory dismissal procedure had been followed.

It fell to the Tribunal to determine if the dismissal was fair. This centred upon whether the conduct amounted to ‘gross’ misconduct.  The Tribunal found that it was reasonable for the respondent to determine that the claimant’s conduct amounted to intentional delay of the mail.  This was made on the basis that the claimant was experienced, he had failed to deliver for three contracts in the week in question and he failed to inform managers who he had contact with on every day.  Despite it being a first disciplinary offence it was found to be deliberate and wilful making the decision to dismiss fair in the circumstances.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

An interesting aspect of this case was the fact that the parties agreed on a range of issues which had the effect of focusing the issue to whether the dismissal was fair.  This allowed for the Tribunal to focus on the fairness of dismissing the claimant in the circumstances.  The Tribunal looked at a range of factors including the deliberate nature of the action, the failure to notify management and the lack of remorse in finding that the dismissal was fair.  These factors are ones that would cut across a range of dismissals and employers should be aware of them in making decisions.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/