Roger Kearney, who was convicted of murder, has lost his claim of unfair dismissal against Royal Mail, who he claimed had breached his human rights when it dismissed him before his trial took place.
Roger Kearney was convicted of murder in June 2010. Royal Mail dismissed Mr Kearney from his position as a van driver in January 2010 for gross misconduct. He claimed unfair dismissal and loss of earnings of £8,825 on the basis that he had been dismissed prematurely as he had not been found guilty of the offence until June. An employment tribunal, however, dismissed his claim.
Royal Mail’s grounds for dismissal were that Mr Kearney had been charged with murder, there had been substantial press coverage, damaging Royal Mail’s reputation, he had failed to adhere to the standards expected of employees and there could be a “risk” to the public because the murder was “particularly violent”. Mr Kearney was also on bail, unable to enter Hampshire and he worked at the Southampton Mail Centre. It therefore was not a realistic option to allow Kearney to be suspended and stay at home when, at the time, there was no trial date and Royal Mail was struggling financially.
Mr Kearney argued that anyone can be accused of a crime at any time and it should follow that they are presumed innocent until found guilty. He was extremely disappointed that Royal Mail must have believed the allegations against him after 34 years of service, a clear conduct record and no previous convictions. He further argued that the charges against him had no affect on his ability to perform his job and the decision to dismiss breached his human rights.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
