Mr P Willie v Abbey Logistics Group Limited — 2021

Mr Willie was employed by Abbey Logistics Limited as an HGV driver from 16 July 2007. The respondent required drivers to use a digicard and had circulated reminders in March 2019 and October 2019, both of which the claimant signed. The tribunal also noted that in November 2019 he had previously been found to have driven without a digicard and received a written warning for gross misconduct.

The dismissal arose from an incident on 8 June 2020, when the claimant arrived at work without his digicard, which was in his personal vehicle at a repair shop. He drove his first delivery and later retrieved the card. At the investigation and disciplinary stages, the allegation of falsifying timesheets was not upheld, but the allegation of driving without a digicard was upheld. Mr Freek decided to dismiss the claimant with immediate effect for gross misconduct, and the tribunal found that he dismissed the claimant for driving without a digicard contrary to the legislation and the company rules.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was reasonable. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had admitted driving without the card, that the respondent had the manual printout showing no card inserted, and that Mr Freek was entitled to take account of the earlier written warning and the unusual fact that there had been two instances of driving without a digicard. The tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments about delay, separation of stages, and not being given the chance to question Mr Henson, and noted that he did not appeal.

On procedure and sanction, the tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to characterise the conduct as gross misconduct and was not required to work through the disciplinary sanctions in sequence. It found that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness the respondent attached to digicard compliance, the repeated warnings to drivers, and the claimant's previous disciplinary history. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.