Mr. EL Crawford v Openreach Plc. Hearing: Final Merits Hearing — 2023

The claimant, Mr EL Crawford, brought a single claim of unfair dismissal under ss.94-98 Employment Rights Act 1996 arising from his dismissal by Openreach Plc on 20 December 2021. The tribunal found that the respondent’s reason for dismissal was its genuine belief that he had failed to use a gas detection unit properly, or at all, on four field jobs identified as Jobs #4, #5, #7 and #8. The tribunal accepted that use of a GDU was a critical health and safety requirement and that the potential consequences of not using it properly were very serious.

The tribunal found reasonable grounds for that belief. It relied on a comparison between the claimant’s job execution and completion times and the GDU activation data, and rejected the claimant’s arguments about his GDU clock being an hour out, the apparent anomalies in the on/off data, and any suggested unreliability in his recorded job times. It held that the respondent’s decision-makers were entitled to conclude that the discrepancies remained material even after adjustment for the clock issue.

The tribunal also found the investigation reasonable and the disciplinary and appeal process fair. Mr Ismail carried out two investigatory meetings, conducted site visits, obtained internal technical input on the GDU, and accepted the claimant’s explanations on some incidents at the investigatory stage. Mr Baker held the disciplinary hearing, and Mr McGinlay heard the appeal; the tribunal found both decisions were genuinely made and that the appeal process fairly considered new material, including the claimant’s challenge to Job #9 and his points about Job #1 and Job #6, which were not upheld against him on appeal.

On the final fairness question, the tribunal held that dismissal for the four proven incidents fell within the range of reasonable responses. It attached particular weight to the safety-critical nature of the equipment, the claimant’s knowledge of the requirement to use it, and the seriousness of the potential consequences of non-compliance. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed in full, and no monetary award was made.