Richardson v Royal Mail Group Ltd ET/1503209/09
Date added: 26 August 2010
unfair dismissal | curing disciplinary defects on appeal
This case has interesting facts, and demonstrates an important point: that it is possible for an employer to cure, on appeal, what would otherwise be an unfair dismissal.
Practical tips
The employer in this case dismissed the employee for one reason, and then upheld the decision on appeal for a different reason. Appeal officers should always consider all the circumstances when deciding an appeal, as they may be able to cure any defects in the original decision.
As part of a fair investigation, employers should always ask employees facing misconduct allegations what their reasons were for their actions, and take into account any mitigating factors. Those reasons will rarely excuse the misconduct, but may lead to a less severe sanction. |
Mr Richardson had over 19 years’ exemplary service with Royal Mail. On 9 June 2009, he went to his line manager (Mr Argent, who the previous day had called Mr Richardson a “wanker”) to ask for some crayons, which he needed for work purposes. An incident then occurred because of an inappropriate joke that Mr Argent had on his mobile phone, which referred to “retards” and “crayons”. Mr Richardson’s evidence was that, when he asked for the crayons, Mr Argent looked at him and read out the joke. Mr Richardson took Mr Argent’s words to be directed at him personally, and took extreme offence at the word “retard” because he had previously suffered from learning difficulties.
Mr Richardson’s reaction to all of this was to throw a cup of hot coffee over Mr Argent, abuse him verbally, and tip and rub a plate of toast over his head.
Royal Mail began disciplinary proceedings against Mr Richardson and dismissed him for gross misconduct due to his use of abusive language. In coming to his decision, the disciplinary officer found that Mr Argent had not used the word “retard”, that Mr Argent was just making a joke, and that it was unreasonable of Mr Richardson to have taken it personally. However, on hearing Mr Richardson’s appeal against dismissal, the appeal officer decided that the issue of verbal abuse was not gross misconduct, but that Mr Richardson’s reaction was disproportionate and, with regard to the hot coffee, dangerous. Mr Richardson claimed unfair dismissal.
The tribunal considered that the original decision to dismiss Mr Richardson was flawed. The only other witness to the incident said that Mr Argent “may have used” the word “retard”, and it was stretching the bounds of credulity to believe that Mr Argent was simply sharing a wholly inappropriate joke with Mr Richardson.
However, the tribunal found that the defects in the original decision to dismiss were cured at the appeal stage. It held - with some reluctance - that Royal Mail was entitled to find that Mr Richardson’s actions warranted dismissal, notwithstanding the obvious provocation. The tribunal therefore dismissed Mr Richardson’s claim, and noted that it was of regret that he did not explain his previous learning difficulties to Royal Mail during the disciplinary process.
Additional resources
|