Mr N Toms, counsel For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal held that the respondent could lawfully expect health and safety representatives to use their monthly H&S release days for work falling within regulation 4 of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, but that the relevant question was whether the time made available was the time necessary for the particular investigation and whether it was provided at a reasonably proximate point. It found that some of the work done on those H&S days was within the Regulations, but not all of it, and that the monthly allocation was intended to allow for regular health and safety work alongside substantive duties.

For the 2 February 2019 Night Tube incident, the tribunal accepted that the potential hazard was not limited to the two drivers who complained to management. It found that other drivers had also been affected, including drivers left on open platforms and one driver who may have worked outside parameters. On the evidence, it assessed the investigation as requiring approximately five days of work split between the two claimants. Because the respondent was only offering the claimants the chance to use existing release days over a period of months, the tribunal held that this was not the necessary time under the Regulations and found a breach in relation to both claimants.

For the 31 March 2019 Code Generator failure incident, the tribunal accepted that the incident involved a potential hazard and therefore engaged regulation 4, but it did not have clear evidence from Mr Libberton-Rowe as to how long the investigation would take. It could not say that the respondent failed to allow the time necessary, and that claim was dismissed. For the 31 July 2019 M door incident, the tribunal accepted Miss Tily's evidence that two days were needed for terms of reference, interviews, review of records and report writing. It rejected the respondent's argument that the work could be done over existing monthly release days, finding that this would have spread the investigation over at least three months and was not timely or efficient. The tribunal therefore upheld that claim. The judgment made declarations on liability and invited the parties to make further submissions on compensation, so no monetary award was fixed in the judgment.