Postman's dismissal for public urination ruled as unfair

Roo Rawal, a postal worker, was employed by the Royal Mail for 17 years until his dismissal for Gross Misconduct in 2017. Prior to his dismissal, he had a clean disciplinary record.

The reason for the dismissal

The disciplinary allegations followed a customer complaint about a postal worker urinating in a public layby. The event was recorded on a vehicle dashcam. 

Royal Mail invited Mr Rawal to a fact-finding meeting which was led by Rawal’s line manager, Mr Maddy. The minutes of the meeting confirmed that Mr Rawal admitted the allegation. However, his admission was later disputed and amended notes recorded Mr Rawal “admitted it could have been him”. Due to discrepancies, a further meeting took place. 

Mr Rawal claims that “Mr Maddy had already decided he would be dismissed” and that his fact-finding exercise was an attempt “to justify that dismissal”. Mr Rawal claims that he was dismissed by his employer because of his poor relationship with his manager and alleges that his union membership had “brought him into conflict with his direct line manager, Simon Maddy”.

The tribunal heard from Mr Williams, a colleague of Mr Rawal, who had faced a similar situation in 2016. Mr Williams attended a meeting which was held by his line manager and was told not to do it again. No disciplinary action was taken against Mr Williams. Mr Williams told the tribunal that “he had heard of other postmen urinating in public on duty” describing it as a “regular” event, however, he “is not aware of any other postmen being dismissed for the offence”. 

The tribunal noted that the dashcam footage, taken from a moving car, showed a Royal Mail van pulled up in the layby. There was a person with their back to the camera and unidentifiable, standing beside the van. The audio shows the car occupants believed the person to be urinating.

The tribunal concluded that the principal reason for Mr Rawal’s dismissal was his poor relationship with Mr Maddy. This was caused by Mr Rawals trade union activities. It is unlawful to treat an employee less favourably because of their trade union involvement and Mr Rawal’s dismissal was automatically unfair. He was awarded £37,720.98.

It is always important to investigate complaints of misconduct thoroughly and to handle them fairly. It is as important to step back and think why action is being taken and consider whether action has been taken against others in similar circumstances. In this case, if others had also been dismissed, there is a very strong chance the tribunal would not have reached the same conclusion.

If you would like advice on disciplinary proceedings in employment law, please contact our expert employment lawyers. I am based in our Colchester office and can be contacted on 01206 217301 or Sarah.Shah@birkettlong.co.uk.