Mr J Neckles, Union representative For the v Respondent — 2017

The claimant, a bus driver, was dismissed after an incident on 8 August 2017 involving a passenger complaint that he had used abusive language about the passenger's religion. The respondent suspended him on 15 August 2017, investigated the matter using CCTV and witness evidence, and dismissed him summarily on 15 September 2017. The claimant appealed and viewed the CCTV for the first time at the appeal hearing, but the appeal was dismissed on 25 October 2017.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, that the investigation was reasonable, and that dismissal was within the reasonable range of responses. It rejected the submission that the charge was improperly framed, holding that the allegation of religious discrimination fell within the charge as put, even though no racial element was made out. The comparator cases relied on by the claimant were found to be materially different.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had used religious abuse or otherwise committed a repudiatory breach of contract. It found parts of the passenger's account unreliable, including the assertion that the passenger had spoken to the claimant when boarding and given a Muslim greeting. Because the tribunal was not satisfied that gross misconduct was proved, it held that summary dismissal was not justified, and wrongful dismissal succeeded. No quantified remedy was determined in the reasons, although the tribunal noted that the contract provided one week's notice for each full year of service and that damages should be straightforward to calculate.

On the automatic unfair dismissal / protected disclosure claim, the tribunal found that a number of the claimant's health and safety-related complaints were protected disclosures, including complaints about a movable passenger seat, a cracked windscreen, metal shavings and dust, HSE reports, a bent mirror arm or window issue, a sharp edge in the driver's cab, and the 4 August 2017 report. Other complaints were held not to be protected because they were routine incidents, personal grievances, or lacked the required public-interest element. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the 8 August 2017 conduct, not the disclosures, and it rejected any suggestion that managers had contrived the dismissal to get rid of the claimant.