Mr E Carrieles v North Tyneside Council — 2022

Mr Carrieles was employed by North Tyneside Council as an HGV team driver/co-ordinator. On 26 June 2020 he allowed Mr Woods, who was not authorised and did not have the required CPC licence, to drive the council vehicle assigned to him. Mr Woods drove into a wall, causing substantial damage to the building and the vehicle. The claimant completed and signed an accident report stating that he had been the driver, although CCTV footage showed otherwise.

The tribunal found that the respondent investigated the matter reasonably by visiting the accident site, viewing CCTV, reviewing the accident report and witness statement, and obtaining fact-finding responses from both the claimant and Mr Woods. The claimant was invited to disciplinary hearings, did not attend, did not explain his non-attendance, and had gone abroad without telling the respondent despite knowing a disciplinary hearing was pending. The tribunal found the disciplinary procedure fair and held that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses, given the unauthorised driving, false accident report, health and safety concerns, and the respondent's loss of trust and confidence.

The breach of contract claim for notice pay was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a fundamental breach of contract, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice and no notice pay was due.

For the disability discrimination complaint, the respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled. The claimant identified the alleged unfavourable treatment as the manner of dismissal and not being able to explain what happened, and identified the alleged something arising as being unable properly to explain matters during the fact-finding process. The tribunal found that he had been given opportunities to explain matters in the accident report and in written fact-finding answers, and that his own evidence was that he did not explain further because he did not want to get someone else into trouble. It held that the claim did not pass the first stage of the burden of proof test. In any event, it accepted that managing employee conduct and protecting staff and the public were legitimate aims, and that the respondent's approach to written questions and proceeding with the disciplinary hearing in the claimant's absence was proportionate.