Mr P Marshall v Hovis Ltd — 2020

Mr Marshall was employed as a Radial Driver from 10 February 2014 until his dismissal on 8 January 2020. The claim before the tribunal was unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal heard evidence about two accidents in October and November 2019, both of which the claimant accepted were his fault, together with his earlier disciplinary history including a written warning in February 2018 and a final written warning on 29 October 2018 for aggressive behaviour, which the tribunal found remained live until 25 October 2019.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s arguments that the final written warning was ambiguous, that it should have been disregarded, or that the respondent should have reopened the earlier disciplinary outcome. It held that the warning clearly expired at midnight on 25 October 2019 and distinguished Bevan Ashford v Malin. It also found no basis to criticise the respondent for not reopening the final written warning, relying on Gray Dunn and Co v Edwards. On the evidence, the respondent had a reasonable belief in misconduct because the claimant admitted fault in both accidents and there was documentary support for the incidents.

Applying Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found the investigations and disciplinary process were reasonable. It accepted that Mr Flinton carried out comprehensive investigations, that Mr Hall gave the claimant an opportunity to explain his actions, and that the dismissal letter set out safety concerns, the claimant’s disciplinary record, and possible alternative sanctions. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the outcome had been predetermined, and found the claimant’s complaints about delay between the first accident and the disciplinary hearing did not make the dismissal unfair. It also accepted that Mr Taylor’s appeal process considered the training record, the recommendation for further driver assessment, and the claimant’s points about the new vehicle.

The tribunal concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It noted that the claimant had been involved in at least three accidents in less than two years, had a live warning at the time of the first October 2019 accident, and had accepted fault throughout. The appeal was not upheld, and the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim in full.