Mr Onuegbo (Solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, a bus driver employed from 23 July 2012, was dismissed on 2 April 2020 after a 27 March 2020 driving incident during the first Covid-19 lockdown. The tribunal accepted that CCTV showed he drove one-handed, crossed chevrons, ran red and amber lights, repeatedly exceeded the speed limit, and collided with a parked car, causing damage to five cars. It found the dismissal was for conduct and that the respondent reasonably relied on the CCTV, the accident scene, and the claimant's own admissions at the fact-finding stage.

The direct race discrimination claim and the related race harassment claim were not upheld. The tribunal found that the claimant did not establish facts from which race discrimination could be inferred, and in any event the respondent gave a non-discriminatory explanation for the relevant processes. It accepted that the respondent did not know of any shielding letter at the material time, that return-to-work meetings were not always carried out because of rota arrangements, and that suspension after a serious accident was the respondent's normal procedure applied to drivers generally. The tribunal also rejected the allegation that the claimant was refused a companion of his own choosing or denied access to policies in a way that was linked to race.

The s44 ERA 1996 health and safety detriment claim failed because the tribunal found the case unclear and held that going off sick did not itself amount to bringing harmful or potentially harmful circumstances to the employer's attention or taking appropriate steps in danger. It also found, on balance, that the claimant did not provide the NHS shielding letter to the respondent, so there was no basis for the alternative case that he had raised shielding concerns by that letter.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that conduct was a potentially fair reason, that the investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable overall, and that the sanction fell within the range of reasonable responses. It relied on the seriousness and duration of the poor driving, the absence of a material procedural unfairness, and the fact that the claimant did not raise Covid, shielding, or medical issues during the internal process. Wrongful dismissal also failed because the claimant's driving amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and justified summary dismissal without notice.