Mr Stuart Ravald v Biffa Waste Management Services Ltd — 2024

The tribunal held that the only live claim was unfair dismissal. Although the claimant had referred to discrimination and health and safety concerns, the judge found that he was not pursuing discrimination or whistleblowing claims, and the case proceeded only as an unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The dismissal arose after two incidents involving the claimant’s operation of a compactor vehicle. In the first incident, on 18 June 2021, he reversed into a stationary skip vehicle and was later given a final written warning on 13 July 2021. The tribunal found that warning had been issued in good faith, that there were at least prima facie grounds for it, and that it was not manifestly inappropriate. It also found that the claimant’s separate complaint about bullying did not affect that disciplinary outcome or the later dismissal decision.

The second incident occurred on 17 November 2022, when the claimant operated the vehicle without wearing his seatbelt and had engaged the seatbelt behind his back so that the external warning light suggested he was wearing it. The tribunal accepted that he had some difficulty with the seatbelt, but found he deliberately positioned it to conceal the fact that he was not using it. It also found that the respondent reasonably believed he had admitted previous non-use of the seatbelt and that the employer’s investigation was reasonable and proportionate.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s complaints about the disciplinary and appeal process, including his complaint about lack of representation. It found that both hearings were procedurally fair, that the respondent followed the ACAS guidance, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell framework, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely and reasonably believed the claimant had committed misconduct, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. No Polkey or contributory fault reduction was required because the claim failed.