Ms Madeira (stepmother) For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant worked as a Machine Driver and was summarily dismissed on 7 February 2023 after allegations arising from 2 January 2023, including failure to carry out pre-start checks on a loading shovel and later completing the defect record. The tribunal accepted that the claimant did not do the pre-start checks before use and that he later filled in the record without having done them, but it did not accept the respondent's case that this amounted to gross misconduct justifying dismissal.

On liability, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct and that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct. It also found the investigation was reasonable in substance, but held that Mr Gladman had expressed a very firm and decided view at an early stage, which meant he should not have chaired the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal described the process as giving rise to a clear appearance of bias and partiality. It further found that the respondent's response to the failure to do pre-start checks showed the matter had not been treated as seriously as gross misconduct, including the later treatment of a comparator who received a final written warning.

The appeal partially succeeded on the collision allegation because the CCTV had been deleted and the appeal manager could not determine whether the claimant realised he had caused damage. However, the appeal was dismissed in relation to the pre-start checks and defect record allegation, because the claimant had admitted during the process that he had not done the checks and had filled in the book later. The tribunal held that, despite those admissions, a reasonable employer would not have dismissed for this conduct. It therefore found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded and made no Polkey reduction.

The tribunal also rejected contributory conduct, finding that the claimant had not contributed to his dismissal. It held that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract and was entitled to notice pay, but the judgment does not set out a quantified award.