Case 2304883/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nyamadzawo in person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304883/2023
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje BETWEEN
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Nyamadzawo in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Nyamadzawo worked for Abellio London Limited as a PCV driver from 16 November 2020 until his summary dismissal on 10 July 2023. The tribunal found that the disciplinary case arose after a defective ramp was reported on fleet 1521 on 10 and 12 June 2023, and that the Respondent reviewed CCTV from 11 June 2023. It found he arrived late on 11 June 2023, did not check the ramp, did not complete the First Use Check, and signed the Vehicle Condition Report stating the FUC had been completed when it had not.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held the reason for dismissal was misconduct, namely failure to complete the FUC and, alternatively, falsifying the Vehicle Condition Report. It found the Respondent genuinely believed he was guilty, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation through the investigation, disciplinary and appeal stages. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the decision had been predetermined or that the process was unfair because of alleged involvement by other managers, inaccurate notes, or withheld CCTV. It concluded summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses because failure to complete the FUC and falsifying records were both listed as gross misconduct and the failure could have serious consequences for the Respondent.
The wrongful dismissal claim failed because clause 19 of the employment contract allowed dismissal without notice for gross misconduct, and the tribunal found the Respondent had sufficient evidence to conclude that gross misconduct had occurred. The holiday pay claim also failed. Although Mr Nyamadzawo received the investigation letters while on annual leave and had to prepare for the disciplinary hearing around his return, the tribunal found he had actually taken the leave and had not shown that any accrued but untaken holiday remained unpaid.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Dismissed. The tribunal found the claim concerned annual leave that Mr Nyamadzawo had in fact taken, and he had not shown unpaid accrued leave remained outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was misconduct arising from failure to complete the First Use Check on 11 June 2023 and, alternatively, falsifying the Vehicle Condition Report. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed. Clause 19 of the contract allowed dismissal without notice for gross misconduct, and the tribunal found the Respondent had sufficient grounds to treat the conduct as gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- s.86(6) ERA 1996
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.