Ms C Manning v London North East Railway Limited — 2024

Ms C Manning was employed by London North East Railway Limited from 11 November 1998 until her dismissal on 10 June 2022. The tribunal found that on 14 March 2022, while acting as Train Manager at Middlesbrough station, she failed to carry out the dispatch process safely and became involved in a physical altercation with a member of the public. The respondent investigated the incident after CCTV was reviewed, suspended the claimant from safety critical duties, and dismissed her for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing and appeal.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct related to the incident on 14 March 2022, namely unsafe dispatch and involvement in an altercation in which she argued with and assaulted a member of the public. Applying the statutory fairness test under section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its beliefs, had carried out a reasonable investigation, and had acted reasonably in treating the conduct as sufficient reason for dismissal. The tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments about alleged bias at the depot, the failure to interview certain witnesses face to face, the suggested significance of railway byelaws, and inconsistency with other cases.

The tribunal also found that the disciplinary and appeal process was fair and in line with the ACAS Code. It held that the claimant knew how to carry out a safe dispatch, had been trained in conflict avoidance, and nevertheless failed to acknowledge the dispatch signals properly, allowed the passenger to remain in the platform-train interface, and gave the driver the ready to start signal when it was unsafe to do so. The tribunal did not accept the claimant's self-defence case, finding that her repeated pushing of the passenger was not consistent with acting in self-defence and was instead an unacceptable response to the situation. For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that this conduct amounted to gross misconduct and therefore entitled the respondent to dismiss summarily without notice.