Case 3303137/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Neckles, Union Representative For the v Ms C Nicolaou, Consultant Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303137/2021
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs Annie Brown, Dr Claire Whitehouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Neckles, Union Representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a bus driver, was dismissed after an incident on 6 November 2020 at Turnpike Lane involving a Sullivan driver. The respondent relied on CCTV, an email complaint from Sullivan Buses, and the claimant’s own account to allege that he left his cab and entered into a physical altercation. The tribunal recorded that the case was investigated, taken through disciplinary and appeal hearings, and that a remedy hearing was listed for 2 November 2022 if the matter was not settled.
The tribunal rejected the claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1) ERA 1996. It found that the claimant did not rely on health and safety during the investigation, disciplinary, or appeal hearings, and that it was unable on the evidence to conclude that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was health and safety. That claim was therefore dismissed.
On the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996 and held that the dismissal was substantively unfair. It found the investigation flawed because CCTV was not provided in advance, Ms West’s statement was not before the investigation meeting, and the respondent did not obtain statements from the Sullivan driver or the Go-Ahead controller, request Sullivan CCTV, or seek medical or police evidence. It also found that the disciplinary and appeal stages did not cure those defects, and that the appeal managers had new evidence available but did not refer the matter back under the disciplinary procedure.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant contributed to his dismissal to a limited extent. It found that he should not have engaged in the exchange and should have called Code Red earlier, but also noted significant provocation and that he feared for his safety. It therefore reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 20%. The tribunal also considered and distinguished the comparator incident involving Mr Loughlin when assessing consistency of treatment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1) ERA 1996 (health and safety reason). The tribunal found insufficient evidence that health and safety was the principal reason for dismissal and noted that the claimant did not pursue that case during the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996. Liability was found, but the tribunal held the claimant contributed to his dismissal by 20%, affecting the basic and compensatory awards; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.100(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell
- Weddel & Co Ltd v Tepper
- Strouthos v London Underground
- Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- ILEA v Gravett
- Hadjionnou v Coral Casinos Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.