19-year postal worker dismissed for sending unsolicited mail to colleagues: dismissal fair
A postal worker with 19 years' service was fairly dismissed for sending unsolicited items including scissors and a Hi Vis jacket to colleagues. The tribunal upheld Royal Mail's decision, finding the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unsolicited-mail
- #intimidation
- #long-service
- #admission-of-misconduct
- #appeal-rehearing
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Postal Worker from 25 March 2002 to 1 July 2021.
- On 20 May 2021, three colleagues reported receiving unsolicited mail from the claimant.
- The claimant admitted sending the unsolicited mail in letters dated 26 May and 1 June 2021.
- The claimant had an unblemished disciplinary record and 19 years of service.
- The dismissing officer and appeal officer both concluded the conduct amounted to gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Postal Worker at Royal Mail.
-
Unsolicited mail reported
Three colleagues reported receiving unsolicited mail from the claimant, including a pair of scissors, a Hi Vis jacket, chocolate wrappers, and old newspaper.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was placed on precautionary suspension on full pay pending investigation.
-
Claimant admits misconduct
Claimant wrote to Mr Haffenden admitting the complaint and apologising.
-
Further admission
Claimant again admitted the misconduct in a letter to Mr Moran.
-
Fact finding meeting
Mr Moran held a fact finding meeting; claimant admitted sending unsolicited mail and using a Royal Mail pre-paid envelope.
-
Disciplinary meeting
Mr Haffenden held a disciplinary meeting; claimant apologised and asked for his long service to be considered.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct effective 1 July 2021.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Miranda held an appeal hearing as a rehearing; claimant raised health issues and alleged bullying for the first time.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Miranda upheld the original decision to dismiss.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for sending unsolicited mail to colleagues was fair, and whether the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief in the misconduct and acted reasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The claimant admitted sending unsolicited mail to colleagues, including a pair of scissors, a Hi Vis jacket, chocolate wrappers, and old newspaper.
- The dismissing officer and appeal officer both concluded the conduct amounted to gross misconduct, given the nature of the items and the use of a Royal Mail pre-paid envelope.
- The tribunal found the investigation was reasonable, the disciplinary process was fair, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The claimant's long service and clean record did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Admitting misconduct early does not necessarily prevent dismissal if the conduct is serious enough to amount to gross misconduct.
- Long service and a clean disciplinary record are important factors, but they do not guarantee a lesser sanction for serious misconduct.
- Employers can rely on a reasonable investigation and a fair process to defend a dismissal, even when the employee has many years of service.
- If you raise new allegations (e.g., bullying) only at the appeal stage, the employer may still have acted reasonably if they considered them and found them unsubstantiated.
When admitting misconduct doesn't save your job
This case shows that even a long-serving employee with an unblemished record can be fairly dismissed for a single act of misconduct if it is serious enough. The claimant, a postal worker of 19 years, sent unsolicited items to three colleagues — including scissors, a Hi Vis jacket, and chocolate wrappers — using a Royal Mail pre-paid envelope. He admitted the conduct early and apologised, but the employer treated it as gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
Royal Mail suspended the claimant, held a fact-finding meeting, and then a disciplinary hearing. The dismissing officer considered the claimant's long service and apology but concluded that sending unsolicited mail — especially items that could be seen as intimidating — was a serious breach of trust. The appeal officer conducted a full rehearing, where the claimant raised health issues and alleged bullying for the first time. The appeal officer investigated those allegations but found them unsubstantiated and upheld the dismissal.
The tribunal found that Royal Mail had a genuine belief in the misconduct, based on the claimant's own admissions, and that the investigation and procedure were reasonable. The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, even for a long-serving employee.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who admit misconduct should not assume that an apology and long service will guarantee a lesser penalty. Employers are entitled to take a firm stance on conduct that undermines trust, especially when it involves using company resources or targeting colleagues. The key for employers is to follow a fair process — investigate, give the employee a chance to respond, and consider any mitigating factors. If they do, the dismissal is likely to be upheld, even if the employee has many years of service.
Similar cases
34-year postman dismissed for intimidating behaviour: fair dismissal upheld
A night shift postman with 34 years of service was fairly dismissed for intimidating a colleague, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims that the process was flawed.
Admitted failure to check boarding pass: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A general assistant who admitted he did not check a passenger's boarding pass before processing oversize baggage was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably throughout.
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.
Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after raising race discrimination grievance
A primary school teacher with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown' after she raised a grievance alleging race discrimination. The tribunal also found she was victimised.