Mr E Agofure v Beacon Support Service Ltd — 2020

The tribunal heard only the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal. It found that the respondent’s reason for dismissal was the claimant’s misconduct on the night of 11 July 2018 and the consequence that Network Rail said he was not to work on its sites again. The tribunal applied section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Burchell approach to misconduct investigations, and the section 98(4) range of reasonable responses test, including the guidance in Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted that the respondent investigated the incident at Waterloo Station, took a statement from the supervisor, spoke to other operatives, and considered the Interserve/Network Rail investigation. It found that the claimant had admitted in the disciplinary meeting that his lanyard was not connected while he was on the razor deck, that he had been on the roof of the ICE unit, and that the Network Rail manager had stopped him from working. It rejected the claimant’s case that another operative, Rasheed, was the person involved, and found no evidence that the dismissal was driven by the claimant’s complaint about his supervisor, Paolo.

The tribunal also accepted that the respondent considered the claimant’s long service and that, after the disciplinary hearing, Mr Bush delayed finalising the dismissal until he knew whether Network Rail would permit the claimant back on site. When Interserve confirmed on 2 October 2018 that the claimant could not work on any Network Rail site anywhere in the country, the respondent concluded that it had no other work to offer him. Although the appeal process was unusual because Mr Bush remained the final decision-maker, the tribunal found that this was reasonable given the respondent’s small size and limited resources. It held that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and the claim was dismissed.