Mailman with 32 years' service unfairly dismissed over duplicate barcode incident
A mailman with 32 years of unblemished service was unfairly dismissed by Royal Mail after a customer complaint about a duplicate barcode. The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process flawed, and reduced compensation by 20% for his own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #clean-record
- #duplicate-barcode
- #customer-complaint
- #contributory-conduct
- #unfair-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a mailman/driver for 32 years with no previous disciplinary action.
- He used a duplicate barcode provided by a customer and collected mail early, which he believed was authorised by his manager.
- He visited the customer's premises to ask about the duplicate barcode, which led to an allegation that he asked a staff member to lie about the collection time.
- The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct based on three charges, but the first charge was later withdrawn on appeal.
- The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process were flawed and the dismissal was unfair.
- The tribunal reduced any compensation by 20% for contributory conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Royal Mail Group Ltd as a mailman/driver.
-
Observation by manager
Manager Jordan Bachelor observed the claimant collecting mail early from Unique shop and scanning a barcode in his van.
-
Claimant visited Unique
Claimant went to Unique to ask about the duplicate barcode; a staff member later alleged he asked her to lie about the collection time.
-
Customer complaint email
Sarah Adams of Unique emailed Royal Mail complaining about the claimant's conduct, including asking staff to lie.
-
Claimant moved to indoor duties
Claimant was told of an allegation and moved to indoor duties pending investigation.
-
Fact-finding meeting
Claimant attended a fact-finding meeting with manager Ian Rawlings and gave his account.
-
First disciplinary meeting
Claimant attended a formal conduct hearing with dismissing manager Colin Gardner; admitted using duplicate barcode but denied asking anyone to lie.
-
Witness interviews
Mr Gardner interviewed Unique staff members about the lying allegation.
-
Second disciplinary meeting
Continuation of the disciplinary hearing; claimant maintained his version of events.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
National Appeal Panel heard the claimant's appeal; majority upheld the dismissal but removed the first charge.
-
Appeal decision
Appeal dismissed by majority; minority dissented.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Royal Mail fairly dismissed the claimant for misconduct, specifically whether it had reasonable grounds to believe he asked a customer to lie, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The investigation was flawed: the dismissing manager did not interview key witnesses until after the first disciplinary meeting, and the decision to dismiss was based on an inadequate investigation. The appeal panel also failed to properly consider the claimant's long service and clean record.
Compensation will be reduced by 20% for contributory conduct, as the claimant's own actions (using a duplicate barcode and visiting the customer) contributed to the dismissal. The remedy hearing is yet to be scheduled.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees with clean records are entitled to a thorough investigation before dismissal for misconduct.
- Employers should interview all relevant witnesses before making a decision, not after the first disciplinary meeting.
- A flawed investigation can render a dismissal unfair even if there is some evidence of misconduct.
- Employees should be careful not to take matters into their own hands, as this can reduce compensation if it contributes to the dismissal.
A 32-year career undone by a single incident
The claimant, a mailman/driver for Royal Mail, had worked for the company for 32 years without a single disciplinary issue. That changed in July 2021 when he used a duplicate barcode provided by a customer to collect mail early, and then visited the customer to ask about it. A staff member alleged he asked her to lie about the collection time, leading to his dismissal for gross misconduct.
What went wrong in the process
The tribunal found that Royal Mail's investigation was inadequate. The dismissing manager did not interview the customer staff until after the first disciplinary hearing, and the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. The appeal panel also failed to properly weigh the claimant's long service and clean record. While the claimant's use of the duplicate barcode was a breach of procedure, the tribunal concluded that a reasonable employer would not have dismissed him in these circumstances.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of a fair process, especially for long-serving employees. Even where an employee has contributed to the situation, a flawed investigation can make a dismissal unfair. The 20% reduction for contributory conduct shows that employees who act improperly may still receive compensation, but less than they otherwise would. For employees, it's a reminder to follow procedures and avoid actions that could be seen as dishonest, even if well-intentioned.
Similar cases
17-year employee dismissed over bizarre text messages: tribunal finds unfair dismissal
A supermarket assistant with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after sending bizarre text messages to his manager. The tribunal awarded £33,232.48, finding the employer's investigation was inadequate.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
Support worker with 16 years' service dismissed for failing to report coffee spill: dismissal fair
A support worker with a clean record was fairly dismissed for failing to document a resident's coffee burn, the Leeds Employment Tribunal has ruled. The tribunal rejected claims of race discrimination and victimisation linked to a 2015 claim.
Unfair dismissal win: ACAS Code breach and contributory conduct
A former employee was unfairly dismissed by UK Windows & Doors Group Limited. The tribunal increased compensation for the company's failure to follow the ACAS Code but reduced it due to the employee's own blameworthy conduct.