Case 2412916/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Birtles v Transport for Wales Limited HELD AT: Liverpool (by CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412916/2023
- Decision date
- 27 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Birtles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a trainee train driver. The tribunal recorded that the respondent's training process required trainee drivers to demonstrate the standards needed to drive trains solo safely, and that concerns were recorded about the claimant's competence during practical training and assessment.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for a fair reason related to capability and that the respondent's procedure was fair. It concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
In the alternative, the tribunal considered the Polkey principle and found that any different procedure would have made no difference to the outcome, because the claimant would still have been dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the only claim was unfair dismissal and that it was unsuccessful and dismissed. The prompt text is truncated, so extraction relies on the provided opening, issues section, and concluding reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142
- band of reasonable responses
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.