Mr. David Stanworth v West Midlands Trains Limited — 2024

Mr Stanworth, who had been employed since 1991 and redeployed to CET operative work after a 2018 firearm incident, was dismissed following an incident on 3 August 2021 at Redditch station in which a child was injured while he was manoeuvring CET equipment on the platform. The tribunal recorded earlier concerns about his CET use, including a 4 October 2019 collision with a passenger and a 22 July 2021 incident involving failure to follow the safe system of work.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason of conduct and that the claimant knew the case he had to answer. Although the disciplinary invitation wording changed from conduct that had 'contributed' to the injury to conduct that had 'resulted' in it, the tribunal held that, looking at the investigation papers and the disciplinary and appeal meetings as a whole, the allegation was clear enough: the issue was whether the claimant had caused or contributed to the child's injury by failing to follow the safe system of work. It accepted the respondent's reliance on the 2 August 2021 CCTV, the training and risk assessment documents, and the earlier incidents as part of the context known to the decision makers.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell test, and the band of reasonable responses, the tribunal held that both decision makers had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. It accepted that the process included multiple investigation meetings, a disciplinary meeting, and two appeal meetings, and rejected the suggestion that the respondent was looking to scapegoat the claimant. The tribunal also held that the appeal manager was entitled to consider the CCTV from 2 August 2021 when deciding the appeal, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for a safety-critical role. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the judgment was liability-only so no remedy was determined.