Postman dismissed after flawed covert surveillance: unfair dismissal claim succeeds
A postman with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after Royal Mail's covert monitoring operation was found to have significant deficiencies, including misidentification and procedural unfairness. The tribunal upheld his unfair dismissal claim but rejected an automatic unfair dismissal claim on health and safety grounds.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covert-surveillance
- #misidentification
- #inconsistent-treatment
- #procedural-unfairness
- #health-and-safety-complaint
Key facts
- The claimant was a postman dismissed for alleged intentional delay of mail on 4 February 2021.
- The covert monitoring operation on 4 February had several deficiencies, including that other employees had access to the mail.
- The claimant was misidentified on 28 January 2021, which led to the monitoring operation.
- The disciplinary hearing did not put the main allegation directly to the claimant.
- The appeal hearing cured some but not all deficiencies in the investigation.
- The tribunal found the dismissal substantively unfair due to an unreasonable investigation.
Timeline
-
Misidentification incident
Manager Shayla Ash identified the claimant as removing door-to-door items from Duty 12 frame, but the claimant was later found to have been misidentified.
-
Health and safety meeting
The claimant raised a health and safety concern about the reinstatement of 'lapsing' with management, accompanied by union representative Steve Watkins.
-
Covert monitoring operation
Royal Mail set up a covert operation on Duty 35, marking D2Ds with invisible ink. After the claimant left, 41 D2Ds were found hidden in a drawer and on a shelf.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended following the allegations of intentional delay of mail.
-
Fact-finding meeting
The claimant attended a fact-finding meeting with investigator Raman Datta regarding the allegations.
-
Conduct meeting
Gary Hall chaired a formal conduct meeting. The main allegation was not directly put to the claimant, and no note-taker was present.
-
Dismissal decision
Gary Hall decided to dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct (intentional delay of mail) with summary dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Allan Rostron, who conducted a re-hearing and upheld the dismissal on 24 June 2021.
-
Appeal decision
Allan Rostron issued a decision letter upholding the original dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the postman's dismissal for alleged intentional delay of mail was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether it was automatically unfair on health and safety grounds under section 100(1)(c)(ii) because he had raised a concern about the reinstatement of 'lapsing' during the pandemic.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the dismissal was unfair because Royal Mail did not carry out a reasonable investigation. Key deficiencies included:
- The claimant was misidentified on 28 January 2021, which triggered the covert operation.
- Other employees had access to the mail during the operation, so it was not clear the claimant was responsible.
- The disciplinary hearing did not put the main allegation directly to the claimant.
- However, the appeal hearing cured some deficiencies, so the dismissal was not procedurally unfair overall.
The claim of automatic unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds failed because the decision-makers were not aware of the health and safety concern at the time of dismissal.
No compensation was awarded as the case was listed for a remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are accused of misconduct, ensure the investigation is thorough and that you are given a chance to respond to the specific allegations against you.
- Covert monitoring by employers must be carefully managed to avoid misidentification and to ensure that only the suspect has access to the evidence.
- Raising a health and safety concern does not automatically protect you from dismissal if the decision-makers are unaware of it.
- A flawed initial investigation can be partly cured by a fair appeal process, but the dismissal may still be found substantively unfair.
- Union representation can help ensure that procedural steps are followed, especially in disciplinary hearings.
This case shows how a flawed investigation can unravel a dismissal for gross misconduct, even when the employer has strong suspicions. The postman was dismissed for allegedly hiding mail during a covert operation, but the tribunal found that Royal Mail's investigation fell short of what a reasonable employer would do.
What went wrong
The trouble started when a manager misidentified the postman as removing items from a delivery frame. This led to a covert operation where mail was marked with invisible ink. After the postman left, 41 items were found hidden, but the tribunal noted that other employees had access to the area. The disciplinary hearing itself was problematic: the main allegation was not put directly to the postman, and no note-taker was present.
What Royal Mail could have done differently
A fairer process would have involved a more careful identification of the suspect, securing the area to rule out others, and ensuring the disciplinary hearing gave the postman a clear chance to answer the specific charge. The appeal hearing did address some issues, but the tribunal said the original investigation was too weak to support a reasonable belief in guilt.
Why this matters
For employees, this case highlights that even serious misconduct allegations require a proper process. For employers, it is a reminder that cutting corners in an investigation — especially when using covert methods — can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, even if the employee might have been guilty. The case also shows that a health and safety complaint does not automatically create a protected right if the decision-makers are unaware of it.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
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.
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.