Mr A. MacMillan (counsel) For the First v Respondent — 2023

The claimant was employed as a train driver from 4 April 2018 and was summarily dismissed on 24 November 2022 after placing a tarantula's shed exoskeleton in a colleague's pigeonhole and, after an earlier exchange about it, later placing a snakeskin in the same colleague's pigeonhole. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for misconduct and that the claimant had intended the items as pranks, while the colleague, referred to as Driver A, was distressed by them.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent's investigation was overall reasonable, but the decision-making process was not. It found that the respondent gave insufficient weight to Driver A's description of the exchange as 'over the top banter', treated the conduct as gross misconduct without properly assessing its seriousness under its own policies, and moved too readily from a bullying label to summary dismissal. The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to pass the claimant's apology on to Driver A, despite his being instructed not to contact her directly, and that this was a missed opportunity for informal resolution.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for believing the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal made its own factual assessment and held that the claimant had carried out ill-judged but largely harmless pranks, did not set out to upset or intimidate Driver A, misunderstood her request to stop, and promptly apologised once he realised the distress caused. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore also succeeded. Remedy for both claims was reserved to a separate hearing and decision document.