Mr T Cunningham v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd — 2026

Mr Cunningham claimed that his dismissal was automatically unfair because he had made protected disclosures and, in the alternative, ordinarily unfair. The Respondent said he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct concerning first-use safety checks, completion of a BCR card and driving a bus with a red warning light. The Tribunal found that gross misconduct, rather than the protected disclosures, was the principal reason for dismissal and was a potentially fair reason under section 98 ERA 1996.

The Tribunal found that bus 79 had been allocated to Mr Cunningham, but he took an unallocated mirrorless MMC bus which had no BCR card. First-use checks and completion of the card were legal and safety-critical requirements of which he was aware. It found that he failed to follow the required process and carry out the checks, then falsified the BCR card by recording that checks had been done. The one-handed steering allegation resulted in a written warning; summary dismissal rested on the three charges concerning the first-use check, the BCR card and the red warning light.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent carried out a reasonable investigation and followed its disciplinary process. It accepted that Mr Cossington genuinely believed Mr Cunningham had committed gross misconduct, on reasonable grounds, after considering his service and disciplinary record. The appeal included a rehearing, interviews with six people and independent advice about the warning lights. The Tribunal held that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair and fell within the band of reasonable responses, so the ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

The Respondent admitted that the disclosures listed at paragraphs 10(a)–(g) and 10(i)–(n) were protected disclosures under section 43A ERA 1996. The Tribunal did not accept that the disclosure at paragraph 10(h), concerning Mr Plummer, was made with a reasonable belief that it was in the public interest. It found that the evidence pointed to a personal dispute and that the investigation was inconclusive on whether Mr Plummer had been sleeping on the premises.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent investigated Mr Cunningham's health and safety concerns, kept him informed and encouraged him to continue raising issues. It found no evidence that the dismissal was predetermined or that there had been retaliation, targeting or retribution because of the disclosures. The section 103A automatically unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. All claims were dismissed, and the judgment recorded no monetary award.