Mr S Sajdera v Port Traction Limited — 2022

The claimant was employed as a full-time HGV driver and was dismissed with immediate effect on 3 July 2020 after the respondent analysed his tachograph data for 19 June 2020. The tribunal accepted that he exceeded the 10-hour driving limit and the 15-hour duty limit on that date, and that the respondent had previously issued warning documentation for tachograph infringements. It found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief based on the TruTac and GPS material.

The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded because the dismissal process was procedurally flawed. The claimant was not invited to explain the 19 June 2020 incident before dismissal, was not given the tachograph analysis or GPS material before the decision, had no Polish interpreter present when dismissed, was not told of any appeal right, and was not offered a meeting on appeal. The tribunal also criticised the fact that the disciplinary process was managed solely by Mr Anthony Myers without independent review and without a written policy on how long warnings remained live.

Although the tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, it held that dismissal itself remained within the band of reasonable responses given the seriousness of the tachograph breaches, the prior warnings, and the respondent's concerns about safety and operator licence compliance. It further held that a fair procedure would probably still have led to dismissal within a short period. It therefore applied a 100% Polkey reduction and a 100% reduction for contributory fault, so any award was extinguished.

The tribunal refused the claimant's request to amend his claim to add direct race discrimination. It accepted that the first concrete complaint about payslips being left in the yard rather than delivered in person to him was raised late, after the case management order had required further particulars and after the time limit had expired. Applying Selkent and the just and equitable extension principles, it held that the amendment should not be allowed and did not consider the merits of race discrimination.