Postal worker dismissed for not wearing seatbelt during pandemic: dismissal upheld
A postal worker with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed for not wearing a seatbelt while sharing a vehicle during the pandemic, the tribunal ruled, rejecting his claim of unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19
- #comparator-evidence
- #unless-order
- #relief-from-sanction
- #summary-dismissal
Key facts
- Claimant was employed as a postal worker from 25 April 2000 until summary dismissal on 18 August 2021.
- Claimant was dismissed for not wearing a seatbelt while sharing a vehicle with a colleague during the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Claimant's colleague received a 2-year warning for not wearing a mask.
- Claimant failed to provide comparator details as ordered, leading to an unless order.
- Claimant complied with the unless order and relief from sanction was granted.
- At the final hearing, the tribunal found the dismissal was not unfair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a postal worker for Royal Mail Group Limited.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for allegedly not wearing a seatbelt while sharing a vehicle with a colleague.
-
Claim form received
Claimant submitted a claim for unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Case management order
Tribunal ordered claimant to provide comparator details and schedule of loss.
-
Further order for comparator details
Tribunal ordered claimant to provide comparator details by 28 April 2022.
-
Respondent applied for unless order
Respondent applied for an unless order due to claimant's non-compliance.
-
Unless order made
Employment Judge Leach made an unless order requiring claimant to provide comparator details and remedy by 4 July 2022, failing which the claim would be dismissed.
-
Claimant complied with unless order
Claimant emailed respondent with schedule of loss, witness statement, and comparator information.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Shotter granted relief from sanction and listed the case for final hearing.
-
Final hearing
Employment Judge Holmes dismissed the claim, finding no unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
Whether the dismissal of a long-serving employee for a single safety breach (not wearing a seatbelt) during the pandemic was fair, and whether the employer treated the claimant differently from a colleague who received a lesser penalty for not wearing a mask.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal. The key reason was that the employer's decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses for a serious safety breach, even for a long-serving employee. The claimant's comparator evidence (a colleague who got a 2-year warning for not wearing a mask) was not sufficiently similar to show inconsistency.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service does not automatically protect against dismissal for serious safety breaches.
- To succeed on a comparator argument, you need detailed evidence of similar misconduct and penalties, not just general references.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders can risk your claim being struck out, but relief from sanction may be granted if you remedy the breach promptly.
- Employers can treat different safety breaches differently without it being unfair, as long as the decision is reasonable.
What this case shows
A postal worker with 21 years' service was summarily dismissed for not wearing a seatbelt while sharing a vehicle with a colleague during the Covid-19 pandemic. The colleague received a 2-year warning for not wearing a mask. The claimant argued that this inconsistency made his dismissal unfair.
The tribunal disagreed. It held that the employer's decision to dismiss for the seatbelt offence was within the range of reasonable responses. The two offences were different in nature: not wearing a seatbelt is a direct safety risk, while not wearing a mask was a policy breach. The employer was entitled to treat them differently.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant struggled to provide detailed comparator evidence. He referred to a colleague and a postman from Dundee, but the tribunal found the evidence insufficient to show that the employer had acted inconsistently. If he had gathered more specific examples of similar misconduct with lighter penalties, his case might have been stronger.
Why this result matters
This case reinforces that employers have wide discretion in disciplining employees for safety breaches, even during a pandemic. Long service does not guarantee a lesser penalty. Employees should also be aware that failing to comply with tribunal orders can jeopardise their claim, though relief from sanction is possible if the breach is remedied in time.
Similar cases
Commercial Director dismissed after TUPE transfer: race discrimination claim fails
A black African Commercial Director dismissed without notice or consultation after a TUPE transfer lost his race discrimination claim. The tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the decision.
Machine operator dismissed for unauthorised absence after returning late from Mali: dismissal fair
A machine operator who returned late from unpaid leave to visit his ill mother in Mali was fairly dismissed for misconduct. The tribunal also struck out his race discrimination claim for failing to provide a witness statement despite an Unless Order.
Refusing to return to work due to childcare: not a health and safety dismissal
An Engineering Manager who refused to return to work citing childcare commitments was not automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns. The tribunal found his principal reason for refusing was childcare, not Covid-19 fears.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.