Case 2403253/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robert McMinn v A & F Haulage Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403253/2020
- Decision date
- 26 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robert McMinn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Robert McMinn, an LGV driver employed by A&F Haulage Limited from 1 June 2009, was dismissed by letter dated 21 January 2020 after an incident on 6 November 2019 in which he ejected his tachograph card while returning to the depot. The tribunal accepted that he was under significant personal stress that day, but found that the card was removed about 3.5 km from the depot when he had already driven for 4 hours and 28 minutes, two minutes short of the required break. It did not accept, on the balance of probabilities, that he told the relevant managers about the incident immediately on return to the depot.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was conduct. It accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, and that a reasonable employer could conclude from the distance remaining, the failure to re-insert the card, and the investigation material that the card had been removed to avoid the statutory break. The tribunal criticised aspects of the disciplinary process, including the use of the same managers in investigation and hearing roles, poor note-taking, and the handling of witness evidence, but concluded that the appeal process conducted by Nitu Patel addressed the main deficiencies and rendered the overall procedure fair.
On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the respondent had proved gross misconduct and that the claimant's conduct amounted to repudiation of the contract. It distinguished the standard for wrongful dismissal from the reasonable-belief test for unfair dismissal, and found that the claimant's actions justified dismissal without notice. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed; the tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief, on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation and appeal, that the claimant had removed the tachograph card to avoid a statutory break, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant was in repudiatory breach of contract and that the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Birchell
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
- British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift
- HSBC Bank Plc v Madden
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.