Mr. G Isbell v First Essex Buses Limited — 2021

Mr G Isbell was employed by First Essex Buses as an Engineering Supervisor from 6 May 2014 until his dismissal on 3 March 2020. The tribunal found that he had received a final written warning on 6 November 2019 for offensive language directed at Mr Henderson, and that he received and understood the warning and the consequence that further misconduct could lead to dismissal. The respondent later changed the vehicle inspection rota at the Basildon depot, which the claimant disputed, but the tribunal found the change was not unlawful and that the claimant accepted the respondent could change its policy.

On 3 February 2020 the claimant had a heated exchange with Mr Henderson and admitted calling him a "fucking idiot" and telling him to "fuck off". The tribunal accepted that he was not physically aggressive, but found that the dismissal decision was based on his admitted verbal abuse rather than the disputed allegations about pushing, clenched fists, or personal space. It also accepted that the claimant was suspended for unsatisfactory conduct and abusive behaviour, and that the disciplinary process considered mitigation including the change in inspection plan, the claimant's length of service, and his complaint that he had been goaded.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's procedural criticisms. Although CCTV was not viewed before the first disciplinary outcome, the tribunal found that this did not affect the result because the dismissal was founded on admissions rather than the disputed physical conduct. It also found that the grievance and disciplinary processes were eventually fully investigated, that any issues about witness statements or witness availability were addressed later in the process, and that the grievance was properly considered at later stages. The tribunal further found that there was no evidence that Mr Henderson had bullied or goaded the claimant, and no evidence of a workplace culture of swearing that would justify the conduct.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses test from Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt, the tribunal held that conduct was a fair reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair. It concluded that the claimant's conduct, in the context of a live final written warning for similar abusive behaviour toward the same manager, justified dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.