I Mbola v Royal Mail

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal erred in law by recording that the claimant had admitted gross misconduct when the evidence showed he had denied one of the two alleged aspects of misconduct. The tribunal failed to identify the precise reason for dismissal and did not properly analyse whether the employer's actual reason was intentional delay of mail (gross misconduct) or merely the claimant's untruthfulness. Because the tribunal’s reasoning conflated or misrecorded the claimant’s admissions and did not address whether dismissal for the admitted matter alone would have been within the range of reasonable responses, the EAT remitted the case for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

Background and parties:

• The claimant, a Royal Mail postman, faced disciplinary charges after two tracked parcels were not taken out for delivery and he later told his manager they had been delivered when they had not.
• He was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing where the disciplinary officer found he had intentionally delayed the mail and had been untruthful; dismissal was upheld on appeal within the employer.
• The claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal which dismissed the claim on 21 January 2020.

Procedural posture:

• The appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been sifted to a full hearing by HHJ Auerbach and was heard before HHJ Martyn Barklem.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The claimant alleged unfair dismissal and sought a finding that his dismissal was unfair.

Issues framed by the court:

What was the actual reason for dismissal? Was it intentional delay of mail (gross misconduct) or the claimant's untruthfulness? Had the employment tribunal properly identified and analysed the employer's actual reason and, if a composite of separate events, examined the whole of the employer's reasoning? Was dismissal within the range of reasonable responses?

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The EAT found the tribunal had misrecorded that the claimant had admitted the conduct characterised as gross misconduct. In fact, the claimant denied intentional delay and explained he had forgotten to collect the parcels because of stress; he admitted only the later untruth to his manager.
• The EAT relied on the principle that tribunals must identify the employer’s actual reason for dismissal and examine the whole of that reasoning (as explained in Robinson v Combat Stress), not merely apply broad labels such as 'conduct'.
• The tribunal had not addressed whether dismissal for the admitted untruth alone would have been within the range of reasonable responses, nor had it properly resolved whether the employer actually believed the intentional delay allegation. Because of these legal errors, the EAT concluded the tribunal’s decision was vitiated and remitted the case for rehearing by a differently constituted employment tribunal.

Appeal allowed and remitted to a differently constituted employment tribunal for rehearing. The EAT concluded that the employment tribunal erred in law by misrecording that the claimant had admitted gross misconduct (intentional delay) and by failing to identify and analyse the employer's actual reason for dismissal and whether dismissal for the matter admitted would have been within the range of reasonable responses.

Appeal from an Employment Tribunal decision (London South, Employment Judge Truscott QC, hearing 21 January 2020). The appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was sifted to a full hearing by HHJ Auerbach. This judgment is reported as [2022] EAT 2.