Mr D Smith v First Essex Buses Limited — 2020

Mr D Smith was employed by First Essex Buses Limited as a mechanic from March 2005 until his dismissal on 11 May 2019 for gross misconduct. The dispute concerned an incident on 11 April 2019 when he was seen working on a bus without a steering wheel cover in place. The claimant said the steering wheel had been removed for practical reasons while he worked on the vehicle, so the cover was unnecessary; the respondent said the policy required a cover to be used and that the claimant had removed the wheel only after being told to use one.

The tribunal found that the respondent had clear and well-communicated health and safety policies requiring steering wheel covers, and that the claimant knew both the policy and the disciplinary consequences. It accepted that the claimant had recently been warned about similar conduct and that the respondent took health and safety very seriously because of the risks involved. On the evidence, the tribunal found that the decision-makers were entitled to conclude that the claimant had failed to use the steering wheel cover when required.

On fairness, the tribunal found that the claimant was told the reason for his suspension, the allegation was set out in the invitation to the disciplinary process, and he was given the opportunity to answer it. Although some witness material was not supplied at the earliest stage and some additional oral evidence was not reduced to writing, the tribunal held that these matters were corrected or did not cause prejudice. It also held that the appeal chair, Mr Gilmore, was not disqualified by the pre-hearing email he had received, and that the overall procedure was fair.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that dismissal for conduct was a fair reason and was within the range of reasonable responses. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal also rejected the wrongful dismissal claim, finding that the claimant's conduct amounted to a sufficiently serious breach to justify summary dismissal.