Case 3304265/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Oliver v British Airways plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 3304265/2018
- Decision date
- 11 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Oliver
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed with immediate effect after a disciplinary process concerning two allegations of unwanted physical contact with colleagues. The tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted misconduct was the reason for dismissal, and the issue was whether dismissal was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief, on reasonable grounds, that the events occurred, and that no further investigation was required in the circumstances. It considered dismissal to be within the range of reasonable responses, particularly in light of the first allegation.
The main issue was that the sanction was increased on appeal from demotion and a final written warning to dismissal. The tribunal found that the respondent's contractual disciplinary procedure permitted an increased sanction on appeal, and although clearer correspondence would have been preferable, the claimant had access to the procedure, was represented by his trade union, and had a further right of appeal. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was not unfair.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's claim was one of unfair dismissal only and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- McMillan v Airedale NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 1031
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.