Mr J Jacob and Mrs G Jacob v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 2400229/2024 and 2400230/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2400229/2024, 2400230/2024

Between

Mr J Jacob and Mrs G JacobClaimant

Royal Mail Group LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Ainscough

Date 23 July 2025

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Tribunal is that the complaints of unfair dismissal are unsuccessful and are dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The first claimant was dismissed from his role as a postal driver with the respondent and the second claimant from her role as a postal operative with the respondent, on 13 October 2023.

[2]The claimants commenced early conciliation with ACAS on 13 December 2023 and received certificates on 22 December 2023 and 2 January 2024 respectively. On 17 January 2024 the claimants submitted their claims to the Employment Tribunal. On 18 March 2024 the respondent submitted the responses.

Issues

[3]The issues for the Tribunal are as follows: Dismissal(a) The claimants were dismissed on 13 October 2023. Reason

(b) Has the respondent shown the reason or principal reason for dismissal?

(d) If so, applying the test of fairness in section 98(4), did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that reason as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimants?

(e) What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The respondent says the reason was a substantial reason capable of justifying dismissal, namely substantial concerns and unmanageable risks arising from the criminal charges brought against the claimants.

(f) Did the respondent act reasonably or unreasonably in all the circumstances, including the respondent’s size and administrative resources, in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimants? The Tribunal’s determination whether the dismissal was fair or unfair must be in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

Evidence

[4]The parties agreed a joint bundle of evidence totalling 386 pages.

[5]The Tribunal heard evidence from Chris Mellor, the respondent’s Operations Performance Leader, and the manager responsible for dismissing the second claimant and Rebecca Rees an Independent Case Manager for the respondent and responsible for hearing the claimants’ appeals. The Tribunal also heard evidence from the claimants. The Tribunal did not hear evidence from Julia Bateson an Area Distribution Manager and the manager responsible for dismissing the first claimant, but a signed witness statement was submitted on her behalf.

[6]It was not possible to provide judgment at the conclusion of the hearing and this decision was reserved. Relevant Findings of Fact First claimant's employment

[7]The first claimant worked for the respondent from 18 April 1983 until 13 October 2023. The first claimant’s role on termination of employment was that of a postal driver responsible for transporting bundled secured mail between depots. The claimant worked alone in a non-customer facing role. Second claimant’s employment

[8]The second claimant worked for the respondent from 4 March 1991 until 13 October 2023. The second claimant’s role on termination of employment was that of a postal operative responsible for delivering mail in a customer facing role. Respondent’s procedures

[9]The respondent has a Business Standards policy setting out expected behaviours for all employees. Under the heading “Security, privacy and trust” employees are expected to “gain and keep the absolute trust of our customers” in the performance of the parameters of their role.

[10]The policy also sets out examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and social media use about the workplace.

[11]The respondent also operates a Time off Work procedure which provides for amongst other things, special leave and career breaks.

[12]Special leave is described as “when you need more time off in addition to your annual leave to fulfil certain commitments during work hours” Examples of special leave are given as: urgent domestic leave, family emergency leave, dependent’s leave, long term care of a dependent, family events, bereavement, medical appointments, redundancy notice period, study and exams, reservists and cadet forces leave and jury service.

[13]A career break is described as “an extended period of unpaid time away from work.” The policy states that requests will be dealt with fairly “whilst taking into account the operational and commercial needs of the business”.

[14]The policy sets out that a career break can be up to two years in duration and will be unpaid. The policy also states that an employee on a career break will “normally be required to work for a minimum of two weeks each year (usually in December).”

[15]An employee will not be eligible for a career break if they are intending to take up other employment during the career break.

[16]The respondent also operated a disciplinary procedure, but I was not provided with a copy of this document during the course of the hearing. Criminal proceedings

[17]In 2019, the claimants’ son, Charlie Jacob, was arrested. In May 2022 the claimants’ son was convicted of conspiracy to supply drugs and fraud and received a 10 year prison sentence. Details of the matter and the conviction were reported on the Manchester Evening News website.

[18]In December 2019 the second claimant was arrested on suspicion of money laundering in connection with the arrest of her son. The second claimant was subsequently charged and placed on bail with curfew conditions and an electronic tag. The second claimant informed the respondent and remained in work. The charges were dropped in October 2021.

[19]In March 2021 the first claimant was arrested in connection with the charges brought against his son but was released without charge.

[20]In March 2023 both claimants were charged with “Between the 1st day of February 2016 and the 31st day of December 2020 conspired together with another, namely Charlie Jacob to enter into or become concerned in an arrangement he or she knows facilitated (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention use or control criminal property by or on behalf of another person. - Contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977”

[21]Neither claimant was placed on bail. On 12 July 2023 both claimants pleaded not guilty, and a trial date was set for March 2025.

[22]In March 2025 the charges against both claimants were dropped. Suspension

[23]On 7 March 2023, on informing the respondent of the criminal charges, the first claimant was asked to stay at home for a period of 24 hours. On 10 March 2023 the first claimant was suspended.

[24]The first claimant was never provided with a suspension report setting out the reasons for his suspension.

[25]On 9 March 2023 the second claimant had to leave work early as the police had turned up at her house. The second claimant was subsequently charged. On informing the respondent of the criminal charges, the second claimant was suspended.

[26]The second claimant’s suspension report recorded that there was a risk to the good image of the respondent should the second claimant remain at work. It also recorded that a suspension would allow the second claimant to co-operate with the police investigation. Finally, it recorded that “while there is no evidence that the incident itself relates to work, as an OPG you will have exposure to customer mail and in this instance, there could potentially be a risk.” Fact-finding meetings

[27]The first claimant attended fact-finding meetings on 16 March 2023, 19 April 2023, 12 May 2023 and 12 July 2023. At each meeting the first claimant informed the respondent that he was not guilty and asked to return to work. The first claimant remained suspended.

[28]The first claimant also informed the respondent that only a limited number of colleagues were aware of the matter and that he was unable to provide any further information about the charges as he was awaiting the police disclosure.

[29]During the July 2023 meeting, the first claimant was able to inform the respondent that the charges related to allegedly transferring money to assist his son’s criminality and that the trial would take place in March 2025.

[30]The second claimant attended fact-finding meetings on 29 March 2023, 25 April 2023, 16 May 2023 and 14 July 2023. At the meetings the second claimant confirmed that only a limited number of colleagues were aware of the matter and that she was not guilty.

[31]The second claimant sought a return to work on the basis that she had not been released on bail, unlike 2019, when she had been allowed to remain in work. The second claimant remained suspended.

[32]Both claimants were subsequently informed that they would have to attend a “consideration of dismissal meeting” as a result of the respondent’s concerns about bringing the respondent into disrepute, their suitability to work with the respondent, the reaction of colleagues and the proposed length of the criminal proceedings. The invite letter informed the claimants that the respondent was considering terminating their employment.

[33]The first claimant’s meeting took place on 25 July 2023 and was chaired by Julia Bateson. The second claimant’s meeting took place on 27 July 2023 and was chaired by Chris Mellor. Consideration of dismissal meetings

[34]The claimants were informed that the matter was not being dealt with as a conduct case but rather that the respondent had concerns about their suitability for continued employment and as a result the disciplinary procedure did not apply. The respondent did however inform the claimants that it would follow a procedure similar to that used in disciplinary matters.

[35]The respondent informed the claimants that it was aware of the article on the Manchester Evening News website about the conviction of their son and was subsequently concerned following the charges brought against the claimants, about the damage that could be caused to the respondent’s reputation. The respondent also stated it was unable to sustain their suspension until the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

[36]It was the respondent’s position that colleagues were aware of the matter and any return to work would have a detrimental impact on the claimants and their colleagues.

[37]The respondent maintained it had concerns about the suitability of the claimants to return to their roles, in light of the nature of the charges and was unable to identify any potential safeguards or suitable alternatives.

[38]The claimants were informed on 13 October 2023 that as a result of the respondent’s concerns, their employment had been terminated with immediate effect. The claimants each received 12 weeks pay in lieu of the notice period. Appeal against dismissal

[39]On 15 October 2023, the claimants submitted an appeal against their dismissals. The claimants contended that their dismissals were premature, pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings and that the respondent had failed to take account of the submissions made during the dismissal meeting.

[40]On 3 November 2023 Rebecca Rees chaired a joint appeal meeting for both claimants. The claimants expressed confusion about the procedure followed and the repetitive nature of the respondent’s concerns.

[41]The claimants also sought answers to the respondent’s view that the first claimant did not appreciate the seriousness of the charges against him and that the second claimant should have known better than to get involved in illegal activity.

[42]The claimants reiterated their views on the respondent’s concerns and sought further clarification. The claimants sought to point to evidence from their solicitor that the charges could be dismissed.

[43]On 4 December 2023, Rebecca Rees wrote to the claimants and informed them that the decision to dismiss the claimants was upheld. Rebecca Rees did not hold the view that the charges could be dismissed, and whilst acknowledging that the first claimant understood the seriousness of the charges, the respondent maintained the concern about the suitability of the claimants for continued employment. Relevant Legal Principles

[44]The unfair dismissal claim was brought under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[45]The primary provision is section 98 which, so far as relevant, provides as follows: “(1) In determining for the purposes of this Part whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show –(a) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal and

(b) that it is either a reason falling within sub-section (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held. (2) … (3) … (4) Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of sub-section (1), the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer) – (a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonable or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and (b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case”.

[46]If the employer fails to show a potentially fair reason for dismissal, the dismissal is unfair. If a potentially fair reason is shown, the general test of fairness in section 98(4) must be applied.

[47]In the case of Leach v Office of Communications

(2012) ICR 1269

CA the claimant was the subject of disclosures made to the respondent by a law enforcement agency. As a result, the claimant was dismissed from his role.

[48]The Court of Appeal determined that an employer will not be acting reasonably if it takes an uncritical view of information disclosed. The employer ought to raise any questions with the source of the disclosure. It is also relevant to question whether a police investigation discharges a respondent’s duty to undertake a reasonable investigation.

[49]The employer must identify why any such disclosures make it impossible to continue to employ the employee. The Court of Appeal also determined that whilst a dismissal may be viewed as an injustice, it was not one imposed by the employer but rather the disclosing agency who gave credence to the allegations.

[50]The Court of Appeal determined that relevant considerations are: the nature of the respondent’s organisation, the claimant’s role within it, the nature and the source of the allegations, the effort made by the respondent to obtain clarification, the claimant’s response and what alternative courses of action were reasonably open to the respondent.

[51]In Lafferty v Nuffield Health EATS 0006/19 the Employment Appeal Tribunal determined that it was not open to an employer to dismiss an employee just because they faced a criminal charge – there must be a relationship between the charge and the damage to the employer’s reputation.

[52]The Employment Appeal Tribunal also determined that an employer should consider whether the alleged offence is of a type that could be committed in the role performed by the employee. ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)

[53]The Code provides guidance and principles for disciplinary and grievance situations in the workplace.

[54]The Tribunal will take the Code into account in relevant cases. The Code states that disciplinary situations include misconduct and/or poor performance. In such circumstances, there should be clear written rules and procedures.

[55]The Code provides that such cases should be dealt with fairly which includes: raising issues promptly, acting consistently, carrying out investigations, informing the employee of the problem and allowing them to put their case, allowing the employee to be accompanied at any formal meeting and offering a right of appeal. Submissions Respondent’s submissions

[56]It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the lack of evidence from Julia Bateson was made up by the evidence from Rachel Rees.

[57]The respondent reminded the Tribunal of the two stage test applicable to dismissals for some other substantial reason: 1) the reason must be substantial – more than unworthy/trivial and 2) whether the respondent acted reasonably in dismissing the claimants.

[58]The respondent maintained that this was not a conduct dismissal, and the respondent had no procedure for a some other substantial reason dismissal. Notwithstanding this, the respondent submitted that it had followed a clear and fair process.

[59]The respondent submitted that the concerns about risk were genuine. The respondent relied upon Leach and Lafferty – that it was not unreasonable for the respondent to assess a future risk to reputation. It was also submitted that as the charges related to offences of dishonesty there was a sufficient link to the work performed by the claimants.

[60]It was the respondent’s contention that there was no measure that could be taken to mitigate the risk posed by the claimants. The respondent maintained that Rachel Rees did consider the alternatives to dismissal but that they were not feasible and would only ameliorate some of the risk. Claimants’ submissions

[61]The claimants submitted that the evidence of Chris Mellor was unconvincing. It was clear, the claimants submitted, that Chris Mellor was fixated on penalties, sanctions and moral condemnation of the second claimant.

[62]The claimants submitted that Rachel Rees was unable to justify why the reason given for dismissal was substantial and failed to explain why she didn’t properly explore the alternatives to dismissal.

[63]The claimants contended that the Tribunal should attach little weight to the evidence of Julia Bateson. The claimants also submitted that they had not been provided with the rationale for their suspensions.

[64]The claimants maintained that following the investigation, the respondent was focused on handing the claimants a penalty and as a result trumped up the issues of concern to justify the sanction.

[65]The claimants submitted that the risk of reputational damage was low because the online article made no mention of their charges and focussed on the sentence received by their son. The claimants contended that there was no link between their charges and the roles they performed for the respondent.

[66]The claimants submitted that the respondent was unable to provide evidence of the risk posed to either the claimants or their colleagues or evidence of any review of the suspension.

[67]The claimants submitted that if the Tribunal determined that there was some other substantial reason, it was not reasonable to dismiss the claimants because the respondent failed to consider the alternatives. Discussion and Conclusions 1) Was the reason substantial?

Discussion and Conclusions

[68]The respondent asserts that the reason for the claimants’ dismissal was “substantial concerns and unmanageable risks arising from the criminal charges brought against the claimants”.

[69]The respondent identified the concerns and risks as reputational risk, the suitability of the claimants to perform their roles, the maintenance of paid suspension until the trial and the impact on the claimants and their colleagues should they be allowed to return to work. Reputational Risk

[70]At the time the respondent took the decision to dismiss the claimants it knew that the claimants had been charged with an offence that was connected to the conviction of their son and that their son was named in their charges, and this was the second set of charges for the second claimant. The respondent also knew that the conviction of their son had been reported in the on-line media.

[71]Whilst the claimants told the respondent that they were not guilty, the Crown Prosecution Service had produced sufficient evidence to list the matter for trial at the Crown Court. It was not necessary for the respondent go behind the police investigation – it was endorsed by the charges brought by the CPS.

[72]The email from the first claimant’s solicitor referred to the possibility of the Court intervening to bring the prosecution to an end due to a lack of evidence, but it was not conclusive, and the first claimant was advised that the CPS had been given more time to submit the evidence. There was no evidence from the second claimant’s solicitor.

[73]Therefore, there was no evidence to suggest that the claimants were likely to prove their innocence. They had been charged with an offence that was connected to their son’s proven criminal activity about which the media were aware. It was reasonable for the respondent to form the view that there was a real risk of a guilty verdict.

[74]The claimants were facing a public trial at which there was likely to be media in attendance. The respondent is the postal service for the nation and as such is held to high standards of trust and confidence. The nature of the charges against the claimants were a real concern for the respondent. Suitability of claimants to perform their roles

[75]Whilst the first claimant’s role was not customer facing, he was tasked with lone working transferring large quantities of mail between the respondent’s sites. Julia Bateson formed the view that the claimant had been charged with a serious crime and as a result there was a risk to the respondent in allowing the first claimant to continue in this role. Julia Bateson said that whilst the claimant faced these charges the risk would remain.

[76]The second claimant’s role was customer facing and she was entrusted to deliver all manner of mail, which included the postal of money. In light of the criminal proceedings, Chris Mellor formed the view that there were real questions over the second claimant’s integrity and as such, she could not be trusted to perform any role in the respondent’s organisation.

[77]The respondent’s own business standards require employees to “gain and keep the absolute trust of our customers”. In October 2023 the claimants were facing a Crown Court trial at which there was a real possibility of a guilty verdict, particularly in light of the conviction of their son. It was therefore not unreasonable for the respondent to form the view that it could not keep the claimants in their roles whilst maintaining the absolute trust of customers. Impact on claimants and colleagues should they return to work

[78]Both Julia Bateson and Chris Mellor formed the view that the workforce had a general knowledge of the charges against the claimants. The claimants were adamant that this was not the case and only a few close friends knew what was going on.

[79]However, the claimants were also of the view that their continued suspension was fuelling the rumours about their absence from work. The conviction of their son had made the on-line media and it is more likely than not that some colleagues knew about it and had questions about the claimants’ absence from work.

[80]The respondent took the view that trust between colleagues was also important and given the seriousness of the charges wanted to ensure colleagues were not offended by the presence of the claimants in work and the claimants were not subjected to unwanted comments and behaviour.

[81]I have determined that it was reasonable for the respondent to form the view that there was a real risk of this concern materialising. The respondent would not have been able to control the reaction of the claimant’s colleagues. Whilst the respondent operates a disciplinary policy that would deal with such behaviour, there was a risk of it impacting negatively on the morale of the claimants and their colleagues and the productivity of the business. Maintenance of suspension until March 2025

[82]The claimants had been suspended on full pay since March 2023. By October 2023 the respondent knew the claimant’s trial was scheduled to take place in March 2025. Had the claimants remained suspended, they would have been in receipt of full pay for 2 years.

[83]In light of recent scandals, the respondent was facing a loss of custom and this impacted revenue. Allowing the claimants to remain on full pay until the trial was a reasonable and real concern for the respondent. This tied in with the respondent’s concern about reputational risk. If the claimants were found guilty, it is more likely than not that questions would have been asked about why the respondent allowed them to remain on full pay for that duration.

[84]I have determined that the concerns raised by the respondent were genuine and more than minor or trivial such that it could amount to some other substantial reason for dismissal. Procedure followed

[85]The respondent did not have a procedure which it could follow in such matters. The closest procedure it could mirror was that of the disciplinary procedure.

[86]The claimants attended a number of fact-finding meetings and were aware of the respondent’s concerns and that those concerns were the reason for suspension. The claimants were accompanied at all meetings, including the consideration of dismissal meeting, by their Trade Union representative.

[87]The claimants were also offered the right of an appeal.

[88]The respondent paid the claimants full pay in lieu of notice.

[89]The respondent acted reasonably in adapting the disciplinary procedure to deal with this matter. The Tribunal has determined that the procedure was fair and sufficient in all the circumstances and reflected the spirit of the ACAS Code of Practice such that the claimants were not placed at a disadvantage. 2) Was it reasonable to dismiss the claimants?

[90]The respondent’s Business Standards exist to ensure that the public has absolute trust in those handling their mail. The claimants’ son had been convicted of a serious offence and was named in the charges the claimants faced.

[91]Given the nature of the respondent’s business, I accepted the evidence of the respondent’s witness that there were no suitable alternative roles at the claimants’ grade that would allow the respondent to maintain that trust of the public as any such role would involve handling or access to mail.

[92]Whilst the on-line media article did not name the claimants, it named their son, and their son was named in the charges which they faced. The Crown Court is a public court at which the media attend. It is more likely than not that the trial would have been reported in the media and therefore, the reputational risk to the respondent was high.

[93]It was not appropriate to grant special leave in such circumstances. The examples given in the policy relate in essence to emergency leave to deal with life events that cannot be dealt with by the use of annual leave.

[94]The career break policy required the claimants to return 2 weeks each year at Christmas. The respondent would face the same concerns over public trust and the access the claimants would have to mail during this period. The reason for this requirement is because the respondent organisation is busy during the Christmas period when the volume of mail is significant.

[95]In addition, the second claimant told Rachel Rees that she would have to work whilst on a career break which was not permitted under the terms of the policy. This restriction is quite commonplace in such policies and not unreasonable to avoid any potential for conflict of interest between the respondent and any second employer.

[96]The question of whether it was therefore reasonable to dismiss the claimants is an objective test – not what the Tribunal may necessarily do, but what a reasonable employer would do.

[97]The respondent couldn’t allow the claimants to return to work with access to mail if they wanted to maintain the trust of the public and maintain the morale of the claimants’ colleagues. There was a very real chance that the media would report on the trial. The claimants were charged with dishonesty offences connected to the serious criminal activities of their son.

[98]The respondent reasonably determined it would not be financially responsible or reputationally prudent to allow the claimants to remain suspended on full pay for a further 18 months when the position taken by the CPS and the Crown Court was that there was sufficient evidence to list a public trial and secure a guilty verdict.

[99]There is no doubt that the claimants feel they have been subject to an injustice as the charges were eventually dropped. However, as the Court of Appeal set out in the case of Leach, this is not the fault of the respondent which had to do what it could to protect the reputation of the organisation, staff morale and the frugal allocation of dwindling resources on the information it had at the time. The injustice was caused by the police and the CPS who pursued charges which they were unable to prove.

[100]As a result of my findings, the claims of unfair dismissal are unsuccessful and are dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Ainscough Date: 23 July 2025