Mr K Wright Respondents Govia Thameslink Railway Heard via CVP (London Central) v Respondent — 2022

The claimant was employed as a Ticket Office Clerk at Victoria Station from 17 October 2005 and had a long, clean service record. During the COVID period the respondent introduced a home-standby arrangement. On 28 May 2020 the claimant, acting on a genuine but mistaken understanding of the standby rules, drank a glass of wine after 13:00 on the basis that he would know by then whether he would be needed. At 13:08 he was called to come in to cover a colleague, and he told his manager that he could not attend because he had had a drink.

The tribunal accepted the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, because the claimant admitted having had a drink. It also found the investigation reasonable. However, the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair because the disciplinary decision-maker treated any breach of the alcohol policy as requiring summary dismissal, did not properly consider mitigation, and approached the hearing with the outcome already determined. The tribunal found that this was an incorrect reading of the policies and that the claimant's representations were not given a real chance to affect the outcome.

On sanction, the tribunal held that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. It placed weight on the claimant's honesty, exemplary attendance, clean disciplinary record, long service, and genuine misunderstanding. It also noted that the published consequence for failing to attend a standby shift was loss of pay and being marked absent, and that the alcohol policies were directed to safety on the railway, which was not engaged because the claimant did not attend work while under the influence. The tribunal therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim.

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant had not been in fundamental breach of contract and had not committed gross misconduct. Remedy was not determined in the judgment; the tribunal directed that a remedy hearing would be listed, including consideration of reinstatement.