Alcohol and work: time for employers to rethink their approach
This Alcohol Awareness Week (7–13 July 2025), led by UK charity Alcohol Change, the theme is “alcohol and work”. A good time for employers to reflect on how they approach…
READ MOREWe use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.
The cookies that are categorised as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ...
Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.
Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyse the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customised advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyse the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.
A recent claim against Royal Mail highlights the importance of conducting a thorough and impartial investigation before the decision to dismiss is made. The Employment Tribunal (“ET”) ruled the dismissal unfair due to Royal Mail’s failure to follow a reasonable disciplinary process. While this is only an ET decision and so not binding for other cases, it is a useful example of what is expected of employers in terms of procedure.
Mr. Weston worked for Royal Mail as a postman for over 16 years. His role was to deliver letters and parcels on foot. In February 2022, he injured his hip at work, which led to a period of sick leave until May 2022 when he returned to full duties. Between May and November 2022, he also worked as a taxi driver outside of his Royal Mail shifts. His managers were aware of this.
Between November 2022 and January 2023, Mr. Weston was placed on light duties due to his hip injury as he was experiencing a flare up. When he experienced a further flare up in February 2023, his further request for light duties was turned down. As a result, he remained on sick leave pending the results of an MRI scan.
In April 2023, during a meeting with his manager, Weston was asked about his taxi driving. He confirmed that while he wasn’t driving his taxi at the time, he may consider returning to it in the future. A further Occupational Health Report from May 2023 determined that Weston was unfit to work due to severe symptoms of anxiety and depression.
Weston resumed his taxi driving job on 12 June 2023 while still on sick leave and receiving half pay from Royal Mail. He attempted to call his manager to advise him that he had started driving his taxi but his manager did not answer and after two failed calls, Weston made no further attempts to contact his manager.
On June 15, 2023, Weston was seen by two Royal Mail managers driving his taxi, and one of them took a photo. One of those managers was Mr Corrigan who later had a call with Weston where he accused him of operating a taxi service while on sick leave.
Corrigan was then appointed to lead the investigation into Weston’s conduct which included allegations of abusive language and aggressive conduct relating at least in part to the phone call he had had with Weston on 15 June 2023. Following the investigation into these allegations, and a disciplinary hearing, Weston was dismissed on 16 September 2023 for being dishonest about his ability to work, being abusive and aggressive, and having unnecessary absences from work. Despite an appeal, his dismissal was upheld.
The Tribunal, however, found that the dismissal was unfair.
The Tribunal found several key issues with how Royal Mail handled the case:
While the Tribunal acknowledged Weston’s culpability for working as a taxi driver during times when he was contractually obligated to work for Royal Mail, it ruled that the dismissal was unfair due to procedural errors and made an award of £3,010 in Weston’s favour.
It is common for employers to be concerned when they discover that during a period of sickness absence an employee is working elsewhere, going on holiday, or engaging in social activities such as a “night out”. Employers often take the view that if an employee is unfit for work, they must be unfit to do anything else, or to participate in life. This can be a costly mistake.
Employers should remember that an employee will be signed off as unfit to do their job – that does not mean they are unfit for all work far less that they are unfit to go to the pub. Where an employee is off with work stress it may actually be beneficial for their health to go on holiday or to socialise, and employers should not take a dim view of this.
There will certainly be cases where an employee’s activities are inconsistent with their claimed reason for absence, or are likely to prolong their absence, and these cases can be dealt with through the usual processes. Employers should remember though that they are not medical experts and therefore should not leap to assumptions about what an employee should or should not be able to do, in light of their health condition. Medical evidence will be needed.
However, in many cases there will be no inconsistency and employers should not leap to the conclusion that the employee is lying to them, and/or to their GP, about their health and their fitness for work.
Employers should also check the rules for employees working elsewhere – if permission is needed, and has not been obtained, then that matter can certainly be taken further formally.
This case emphasises several further important lessons for employers regarding disciplinary procedures:
This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of conducting a fair and thorough disciplinary process. Although Weston was determined to have been guilty of misconduct, Royal Mail’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and follow due process led to an unfair dismissal finding.
Our team of expert employment lawyers is on hand to assist with any queries you have.
This update contains general information only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice.
Notifications