Case 2300324/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Jones v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300324/2021
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed following an investigation into allegations that he had bullied and belittled a colleague. The tribunal rejected the claimant's contention that the dismissal was motivated by earlier disciplinary matters or by his report about another colleague, and found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had an honest belief in the allegations, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It found the allegations, as accepted by the respondent, were sufficiently serious that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, and that the disciplinary and appeal procedure was fair.
For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal considered whether the claimant had in fact committed gross misconduct. It found that the claimant had acted inappropriately towards the colleague in a way that amounted to bullying, over a significant period and towards a vulnerable individual. The tribunal concluded this was sufficiently serious to amount to gross misconduct, so dismissal without notice was permitted.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, that the respondent honestly believed the misconduct allegations, had reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim was described as breach of contract/wrongful dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant's behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and that the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Burchell test
- British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Food v Jones [1983] ICR 17
- Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] IRLR 734
- Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288
- West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra [2014] IRLR 227
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.