Mr J Wood v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) — 2020

Mr Wood was employed by Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) as a drayman from 27 July 2015 until his summary dismissal by letter dated 23 August 2019. The dismissal followed two driving incidents: on 1 August 2019 he was observed by the DVSA driving the respondent's HGV in the outside lane of the A1 despite “No HGV” markings and speed restrictions, and on 19 August 2019 he collided with a barrier at the respondent's premises while entering through the bottom gate.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had shown the reason for dismissal was conduct and that conduct was a potentially fair reason. It found it was reasonable for the dismissing and appeal officers to conclude that Mr Wood had driven in the outside lane of the A1 for about three miles because he had become fed up of travelling at 40mph in traffic, and that he had driven at speeds exceeding the 50mph limit in place. The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses on disputed points and found the claimant's evidence inconsistent on matters including what he had said to Mr Addinall.

For the car park incident, the Tribunal found it was reasonable for the respondent to conclude that Mr Wood had driven into the barrier while using his mobile phone and while exceeding the 10mph site speed limit. It accepted that using the bottom gate was common practice and that the metal barrier should have been secured, but found that the respondent reasonably concluded the claimant should have taken extra care and would have avoided the collision had he been driving with due care and attention, within the speed limit, and not using his phone.

Applying the Burchell test and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed Mr Wood was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses for both disciplinary matters on their own. The unfair dismissal claim failed, and the Tribunal did not consider contributory fault, Polkey, or remedy.