Mr Samuel Moss v Trent Motor Traction Company Limited and 1 other — 2023

This was a reserved judgment on the Claimant's application for interim relief under s.161 TULRCA after his dismissal by Trent Motor Traction Company Ltd (trading as Trent Barton) on 8 August 2023. The claim was presented on 15 August 2023, the statutory time and certificate requirements were accepted as met, and the hearing took place before Employment Judge Broughton sitting alone on 5 September 2023. Although the claim form also pleaded protected disclosures, counsel for the Claimant asked the Tribunal not to address that alternative basis at this hearing, and the Tribunal confined its analysis to the trade union dismissal allegation.

Applying the s.163 TULRCA 'likely to succeed' test and the summary approach described in London City Airport Ltd v Chacko, the Tribunal held that it was not likely that the final tribunal would find the dismissal was because of the Claimant's trade union activities. The Tribunal noted that the Claimant relied on earlier friction with managers, principally Mr Irwin and Mr Sharman, but had produced no documents showing hostility from the people involved in the investigation, disciplinary and appeal process, and in particular no evidence that Mr Cappello knew of the alleged trade union activities or was influenced by them. It also did not consider it likely that the Blink comments relied on by the Claimant would be treated as trade union activities for this purpose.

On the face of the documents, the respondent had a cogent misconduct case arising from the 18 July 2023 umbrella and lost property incident, including CCTV footage with audio, a passenger complaint, and the Claimant's explanations in the investigation and disciplinary meetings. The Tribunal found it unlikely that the final tribunal would reject the employer's account, or find that the process fell outside the band of reasonable responses, and it was not persuaded by the arguments on speed, notice, comparator treatment, or the suggestion that the reason advanced was implausible. Interim relief was therefore refused, and no order was made for reinstatement, re-engagement, or continuation of contract.