Mr J Godinho v Transport UK London Bus Ltd — 2025

Mr J Godinho was employed by Transport UK London Bus Limited as a bus operator from 23 January 2017 until 27 December 2023. The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct, namely that he was absent on unauthorised leave after asking for five weeks off to travel to India for a medical appointment. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had back problems, that an occupational health report received before he travelled said he was fit to work, and that he had previously been told his proposed leave was not authorised.

The claimant travelled to India on 6 December 2023. The respondent then wrote to him on 11 December, 18 December and 22 December 2023 asking him to return and inviting him to a disciplinary hearing. He did not attend the disciplinary hearing on 27 December 2023, so the hearing proceeded in his absence and he was dismissed without notice. On appeal, after he had returned and attended with his union representative, the appeal officer upheld the finding of gross misconduct and the sanction of dismissal. The tribunal noted that the respondent's attendance policy treated continued unauthorised absence as gross misconduct and that the claimant knew the policy.

Applying section 98(2)(b) and section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely and reasonably believed the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct. It found there were reasonable grounds for that belief because the claimant had booked travel knowing leave had not been authorised, and he accepted in the appeal process that there was no guarantee the leave would be granted. The tribunal also found the investigation was reasonable in the circumstances, including the occupational health referral and the correspondence seeking his explanation.

The tribunal held that the procedure complied with the ACAS Code and that the dismissal and categorisation of the conduct as gross misconduct were within the range of reasonable responses. It noted that the claimant had prior warnings for unauthorised absence, one of which was still live at the date of dismissal, but said the length and extent of the absence would in any event have justified the sanction. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed.