34-year postal worker unfairly dismissed after manager used tracking data to spot misconduct
A Watford tribunal found Royal Mail unfairly dismissed a postal worker with 34 years' service after a manager used PDA tracking data to investigate him, contrary to a union agreement. The tribunal reduced any compensation by 60% for the employee's contributory conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #delay-of-mail
- #pda-actuals
- #investigation-failure
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a postal worker from 22 January 1988 until dismissal on 11 March 2022.
- On 2 November 2021, the claimant failed to offload his first collection mail at Greenford Depot and was observed parked for 30 minutes.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, citing unexcused delay of mail.
- The disciplinary and appeal managers did not interview two witnesses named by the claimant who could have supported his case.
- The tribunal found the investigation unreasonable and the dismissal unfair.
- The claimant's conduct contributed to his dismissal, leading to a 60% reduction in any award.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Royal Mail as a postal worker.
-
Start time adjustment agreed
Claimant agreed to start work later at 11:45 due to personal issues.
-
Claimant called in late
Claimant informed manager he would be later than 11:45 due to domestic issues.
-
Incident occurred
Claimant was observed parked for 30 minutes during work hours and failed to offload first collection mail.
-
Manager spoke to claimant
Mr Malhotra spoke to claimant about the incident.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant commenced sick leave.
-
Fact-finding meeting
Claimant attended with union rep; denied it was a regular occurrence.
-
Case allocated to disciplinary manager
Mr Malhotra notified claimant that case was allocated to Fasal Sheikh.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended with union rep; charge was gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal decision
Mr Sheikh upheld gross misconduct charge and summarily dismissed claimant.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Steven Potter via Teams.
-
Appeal rejected
Mr Potter rejected appeal, upholding dismissal.
-
Tribunal hearing day 1
Substantive hearing commenced.
-
Tribunal hearing day 2
Substantive hearing concluded.
-
Judgment given
Tribunal upheld unfair dismissal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Royal Mail had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses for a long-serving employee.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
- The investigation was unreasonable because the disciplinary and appeal managers did not interview two witnesses named by the claimant who could have supported his case.
- The manager's use of PDA actuals (tracking data) to spot the incident breached a union agreement that such data should not be used as a disciplinary tool.
- The claimant's own conduct contributed to his dismissal, so any compensation will be reduced by 60%.
Compensation will be determined at a separate hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should not use tracking or monitoring data for disciplinary purposes if there is a collective agreement prohibiting it.
- A reasonable investigation requires interviewing all relevant witnesses, especially those named by the employee who could support their account.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a thorough process; failing to follow agreed procedures can render a dismissal unfair.
- Employees who contribute to their own dismissal through misconduct may see their compensation significantly reduced.
When tracking data leads to dismissal
A postal worker with 34 years of service was dismissed by Royal Mail after a manager used PDA (handheld device) data to identify that he had been stationary for 30 minutes during his shift. The manager then observed the employee parked in a business park car park. The employee later explained he was upset due to serious domestic problems and had forgotten his PDA, causing delays. He also said a previous manager had given him permission to only offload mail once when running late.
What went wrong in the investigation
The tribunal found that the investigation was unreasonable. The disciplinary manager and the appeal manager both failed to interview two witnesses named by the employee who could have supported his case. One was a former manager who allegedly gave permission for single mail drops, and the other was a colleague who might have corroborated the employee's account. The tribunal also noted that the manager used PDA actuals to initiate the investigation, which breached a union agreement that such data should not be used as a disciplinary tool.
Why the result matters
This case highlights the importance of following agreed procedures and conducting a thorough investigation, especially when an employee has long service. The tribunal found that while the employee's conduct contributed to his dismissal (leading to a 60% reduction in compensation), the employer's failure to interview key witnesses and its improper use of monitoring data made the dismissal unfair. For employees in similar situations, this case shows that even where there is evidence of misconduct, a flawed process can still lead to a finding of unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
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.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
Reinstatement ordered but ignored: railway employee awarded over £78,000
A tribunal ordered a railway company to reinstate a 20-year employee after unfair dismissal. When the company failed to comply, it was ordered to pay over £78,000 in compensation.
Security officer dismissed by email without hearing: unfair but 100% contributory conduct
A tribunal found that a security officer with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed after being sacked by email without any disciplinary hearing, but reduced her compensation to zero because her own conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal.