Mr J Edwards v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 3315351/2023 and 3300431/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3315351/2023, 3300431/2025
Between
Mr J EdwardsClaimantRoyal Mail Group LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge FreshwaterIn person for claimantMiss H Kendrick (instructed by solicitor) for respondentDate 10 December 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds.[2]The claimant’s complaint of failure to pay holiday pay is well-founded and succeeds.[3]The claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded and succeeds. Approved by:[1]The respondent shall pay the claimant £1,888.99 in respect of holiday pay. This is the gross amount due to the claimant. Wages[2]The respondent shall pay the claimant £2000.25, which is the gross sum deducted. Unfair dismissal[3]The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums:(a) A basic award of £3,150; and(b) A compensatory award of £16, 126.36.[4]The total award for unfair dismissal is therefore £19,276.36.
REASONS
[1]An oral judgment was given on 6 November 2025, in which I found that the claimant’s complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, holiday pay and unfair dismissal were well-founded.[2]There was insufficient time to deal with remedy, and a remedy hearing took place on 27 November 2025. Hearing[3]The hearing took place in Cambridge Employment Tribunal on a hybrid basis. The claimant was in person and the respondent’s representative appeared remotely.[4]I was referred to a bundle of documents of 170 pages. The bundle had been updated the day before the hearing by the respondent. This was because the respondent updated the document it had prepared dealing with loss calculation following my oral judgment. The claimant confirmed he had received a copy of the updated bundle but had not been able to print out the document that had been updated. A copy was provided to him by the tribunal.[5]I heard oral evidence from Mr Edwards and oral submission from both parties. Judgment was reserved.
The issues
[6]The claimant sought compensation only. He said that, in all the circumstances, he did not seek re-instatement or re-engagement.[7]The claimant was unclear on how to calculate the amount of compensation he thought was fair and appropriate. He said in his evidence that he felt this had been his perfect, forever, job and it was deeply distressing to him that he had been put in the position of having lost his job. He felt that a formal complaint he had made had been used against him. The claimant submitted that the respondent had breached the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures and that the compensatory award should be increased accordingly.[8]The respondent submitted that the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures did not apply in this case because the dismissal was on capability (medical) grounds. In addition, the respondent submitted that the claimant should be awarded half the average net pay for the period 18 October 2024 (the date his employment ended) until 27 November 2024 (when his entitlement to sick pay (on half average net pay) would have expired. In respect of future loss, the respondent said that it should not be liable beyond the date that the claimant started his new job. In respect of the claimant’s current earnings, the respondent accepted that he earns less now than he did before his unfair dismissal, but that he had had enough time to find employment at his previous level of earning. The respondent relied on the loss calculation document in the bundle.
The law
[9]The award of compensation under sections 118 to 126 ERA 1996 consists of a basic award and compensatory award.[10]The basic award is calculated on the basis of gross weekly pay and the number of years’ continuous service (the longer the service the higher the award).[11]The compensatory award compensates the individual for the financial losses suffered as a result of the dismissal and is based on actual net weekly pay.[12]Compensation for non-pecuniary losses, such as injury to feelings, is not available within a compensatory award (see Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council [2004] UKHL 36).[13]Awards of compensation for unfair dismissal may be adjusted for failure to comply with a relevant code of practice
Findings
[14]The claimant was employed in service by the respondent for 3 years from 16 September 2021 until 18 October 2024. Although he worked on an agency basis before his period of employment, the relevant law does not allow that time to count when dealing with remedy for unfair dismissal.[15]The relevant net weekly pay from October 2024 to 31 March 2025 is £615.24. The relevant net weekly pay from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 is £640.55. These are the figures that the respondent says represent the claimant’s average weekly pay based on his pay slips. The claimant says that he does not accept those figures, because they arose from a change of shift pattern that was imposed on him and a failure to pay him an uplift that he had previously received. He thought that his average pay should be £844.43 a week. However, there has been no challenge to the lawfulness of the change in shift pattern during the hearing. The failure to pay Scheduled Attendance is dealt with by way of an award separately and should not be double counted. Therefore, I am satisfied that the respondent has accurately set out the relevant net weekly pay which is to be used for the calculation of the compensatory award (see below).[16]As set out in my oral judgment on liability, the reason that the claimant was dismissed was due to capability on medical grounds. During this hearing, the claimant said that he did not think that was the real reason for his dismissal and that he did not accept he could not have carried on working for the respondent in some capacity. However, this did not form part of the claimant’s case during the liability hearing. His challenge to the basis of the dismissal was largely procedural. The tribunal may not go behind the findings at the liability hearing for the purposes of determining remedy.[17]The claimant applied for many jobs after his dismissal. I found his evidence to be credible, and supported by examples of jobs in the bundle of documents. I am satisfied that he has done all that he reasonably could to mitigate his losses, particularly taking into account his health issues. He was offered and accepted a job with the AA in February 2025 and is still in that employment. It is a lower paying job with a net pay of around £2000 per month.[18]In respect of holiday pay, the following findings from the decision on liability are relevant:a. Mr Edwards is entitled to Scheduled Attendance holiday pay at the rate of £21 per hour for 10 hours a week for the period 10 June 2024 until 7 July 2024.b. Mr Edwards is entitled to holiday pay for 66.15 hours of annual leave accrued.[19]In respect of unauthorised deductions, the following finding from the decision on liability relevant: a. The claimant is entitled to payment for 10 hours of Scheduled Attendance work per week from 12 July 2023 until 30 November 2023.[20]Following the liability judgment, the respondent calculated how much Scheduled Attendance the claimant should have been paid based on my findings. The calculation is set out in the bundle, and there was no challenge to it by the claimant. The calculation is made on the basis of £21 per hour multiplied by 10 hours work per week, minus what has already been paid the claimant. The balance due is said to be £2,000.25 and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this amount is correct.[21]The claimant was unable to explain how much pension he thought he had lost as a result of his unfair dismissal. However, the respondent had made calculations which were not challenged by the claimant. The calculations represent the best evidence available to me in order to calculate this element of loss. Conclusions – holiday pay[22]Scheduled Attendance Holiday Pay is calculated at the rate of 10 hours x £21 per hour a week (£210 a week). £210 x 4 weeks (annual leave from 10 June to 7 July 2024) is £840.[23]The respondent has conceded that Mr Edwards is due the gross sum of £1,048.99 in respect of holiday pay accrued but not taken.[24]The total, gross, sum due in respect of holiday pay is £1,048.99 plus £840 which equals £1,888.99. Conclusions – unauthorised deductions[25]In respect of Scheduled Attendance from 12 July 2023 until 30 November 2023, the claimant should be paid the sum of £2.000.25. This amount is gross. Conclusions – unfair dismissal[26]Remedy for unfair dismissal includes two elements: the basic award and the compensatory award. Basic award[27]The basic award is calculated using the claimant’s period of employment multiplied by gross weekly pay. Gross weekly pay is capped at £700. The claimant earned more than £700 per week, but there is no discretion for the tribunal to go above the cap. Therefore, the basic award in this case is £700 x 3 which equals £3,150. Compensatory award[28]The compensatory award is calculated by deciding what loss has taken place, and then making any necessary adjustments (such as for income received).[29]The compensatory award includes the sum of £500 for loss of statutory rights.[30]I find that it is just and equitable to award compensation for loss of earnings for a longer period than the date of the remedy hearing. Mr Edwards applied for jobs expeditiously after his dismissal, especially taking into account the impact the unfair dismissal has clearly had upon him. He explained in his evidence the wide range of salaries payable for lorry drivers – much depends on the employer in question. He obtained a lower paying job and took it, which is to his credit. He has not yet been in the job for a year and, particularly taking into account stress he has been under and the impact on his mental health of the unfair dismissal, that he has time to adjust to his new job before being expected to obtain a higher paying job – especially in an industry with such variable rates of pay. This is not compensation for stress (which I am not, in law, permitted to award). However, it is a reflection of what is just and equitable in expecting Mr Edwards to find suitable employment at an equivalent rate of pay to that which he received from the respondent in light of all the circumstances. I find that it is just and equitable to expect Mr Edwards to find a job with equivalent pay within 18 months of receiving his first pay slip from his new employer (31 March 2025). That is until 30 September 2026.[31]Loss of earnings from the date of termination to the date of this remedy hearings is calculated in the sum of £64,728.66 as follows:a. Net pay of £615.24 x 24 weeks from 18 October 2024 to 31 March 2025 = £14,765.76; andb. Net Pay of £640.55 x 78 weeks from 1 April 2025 until 30 September 2026= £49,962.90.[32]The respondent concedes the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of a Christmas supplement (£100) and underpin payment (£100). This is a total of £200.[33]Pension loss of £2,916.82. This was calculated by the respondent and not challenged by the claimant.[34]The total amount of the loss before deductions is £67,845.48.[35]The following deductions must be made from the sum of £67,845.48:a.£36,654.12 for income received from the new job (£2036.34 x 18 months from 31.03.2025 until 30.09.2026);b.£5,423.40 for payment received in lieu of notice;c.£9,641.60 for the lump sum payment received.[36]The compensatory award is £16,126.36.[37]The ACAS Code of Practice relating to disciplinary and grievance procedures does not apply to dismissals on medical grounds. Therefore, there can be no uplift for any failure to comply with it in this case. Total award for unfair dismissal[38]Basic award of £3,150 + compensatory award of £16,126.36 equals £19,276.36. Approved by: