Claimant v M Ltd — 2023

The claimant worked as a bus driver from 10 November 2017 to 20 April 2020 and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after CCTV and fact-finding meetings about sexual activity on a bus and use of a mobile phone while driving. The judgment also recorded that an earlier disability discrimination claim had been dismissed because the claimant was not found to be disabled at the material time, with the appeal rejected, and that issue was not before this tribunal. The unlawful deduction of wages claim over uniform deductions was withdrawn on day 2.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had shown conduct was the reason for dismissal and that the investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal were fair and within the band of reasonable responses. It accepted the CCTV-based findings, rejected the claimant's later explanation that he had been drugged or otherwise involuntarily intoxicated as contradictory and unsupported, and noted that the appeal upheld dismissal on the mobile phone incident alone without deciding the sexual conduct point.

The wrongful dismissal claim was rejected because the sexual conduct on the bus and the mobile phone use were held to amount to gross misconduct and repudiatory breach, so summary dismissal was justified. The direct discrimination claims for race, sex, and marriage/civil partnership were also dismissed: the tribunal found the allegations vague and unsupported, with no particulars of racist treatment or language, no basis for saying a female employee would have been treated differently, and no basis for saying marital status affected the process. At the end of the hearing the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £7,500 in costs under Rule 76, taking account of the lack of reasonable prospects, the costs warning letter, and the claimant's means evidence.