Royal Mail’s unfair approach to harassment allegations led to unfair dismissal
Knowles v Royal Mail Group Ltd ET/2411579/09
Date added: 27 October 2010
unfair dismissal | gross misconduct | bullying and harassment
Employers must be precise and unambiguous when setting rules for the future conduct of an employee found guilty of misconduct, as this case demonstrates.
Practical tips If, in dealing with a harassment issue, an employer creates a “recommendation” regarding the parties’ future conduct, it should be drafted clearly and unambiguously. Employers should never reject, without due consideration, the opportunity to consider relevant evidence regarding an allegation of misconduct. |
Mr Knowles was employed by Royal Mail as a data entry keyer, and worked in the company’s Stockport depot on the operational floor with around 60 other keyers. In 2008, one of his colleagues, Mr Rooney, accused him of bullying and harassment. Mr Rooney’s complaint was for the most part upheld, and both employees were issued with disciplinary sanctions. They were also required to abide by the terms of a written “recommendation” from the company as to their future conduct.
The terms of this recommendation stated that neither employee should visit the other's “pod” at work, and that they should find alternative routes to access non-operational facilities and to exit the operational floor. Mr Knowles understood this to mean that he should “steer clear” of Mr Rooney on the operational floor, and should use different routes, where available, to access places like the canteen and toilet. He recognised that the recommendation was silent on what contact between him and Mr Rooney was permitted while they were off the operational floor, such as when they were in the canteen together.
On 28 August 2009, 18 months after his complaint had been upheld, Mr Rooney complained that Mr Knowles was in breach of the recommendation by deliberately walking directly behind him down the stairs when leaving for a break or at the end of a shift. Mr Knowles’s manager, Mr Luke, took a low-key approach and informed him that someone had seen him walking close to Mr Rooney on the stairs. He did not tell Mr Knowles that he was doing anything wrong. Mr Knowles explained that he did not think that he was in breach of the recommendation and that, if anything, Mr Rooney was in breach by using the stairwell near Mr Knowles on the other side of the floor, rather than the other stairway close to him.
On 4 September 2009, the Stockport depot was evacuated due to a fire alarm. The employees gathered outside, and although initially Mr Knowles stood at a distance from Mr Rooney, over time he moved closer, to within five feet of him. After the employees were allowed back into the building, Mr Rooney complained to his manager that Mr Knowles had been standing close by and was “staring at him for three to four minutes”, which had intimidated him and caused him serious distress.
Mr Luke conducted an investigation, which he widened beyond the incident on 4 September 2009 to include allegations that Mr Knowles had purposely been putting himself in close proximity to Mr Rooney at work, and found that there was a case to answer. At the disciplinary hearing, the disciplinary officer refused Mr Knowles’s requests that he view the CCTV footage of the fire alarm incident. He understood Mr Luke’s discussion with Mr Knowles about the stairwell to be a “counselling” under the company’s disciplinary procedure, and interpreted the recommendation as meaning that Mr Knowles should stay away from Mr Rooney even in non-operational areas. Although the witness evidence was conflicting, Mr Knowles was dismissed for gross misconduct. Mr Knowles appealed the decision to dismiss. The appeal officer found that, although the disciplinary officer should have viewed the CCTV footage, this was not a major procedural error, and rejected his appeal. Mr Knowles claimed unfair dismissal.
The tribunal held that, even if the company had a genuine belief in Mr Knowles’s misconduct, that belief was “certainly not reasonable”. It found that the disciplinary officer’s interpretation of the recommendation was wrong, and that the recommendation was poorly drafted and inherently unworkable. The tribunal was satisfied that the company’s CCTV policy not only allowed, but positively required, the disciplinary officer to view the CCTV footage of the fire alarm incident. It also found that it was clear from the company’s disciplinary procedure that the discussion between Mr Luke and Mr Knowles regarding the stairwell allegations was not a “counselling” under the policy, but simply a “discussion”. For these and other reasons, the tribunal found that the company’s investigatory, dismissal and appeal process was “profoundly and overwhelmingly flawed”, and that Mr Knowles’s dismissal was unfair.
Additional resources
- How to deal with bullying and harassment in the workplace Deal with bullying and harassment issues fairly and lawfully with our "how to" guide.
- Adamson v Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd ET/1502919/09 In this tribunal case, a pub manager was fairly dismissed after his wheelie bin prank was caught on CCTV.
- The XpertHR policies and documents section provides model documents on bullying and harassment, including:
- Policy on investigating claims of bullying and harassment Use this model policy to set out the procedure that will be used to investigate a complaint or suspicion of bullying or harassment. The policy could form part of an overall anti-bullying/harassment policy, or part of an equal opportunities policy.
- Policy on dealing with harassment complaints Use this model policy as part of the company staff handbook in order to give employees who believe that they have been harassed or bullied at work a route to raise a complaint either informally or formally.
