In person For the v Ms C Nicolou, Solicitor — 2018

The claimant was a bus driver and Muslim employed by Metroline from June 2015 until his dismissal on 20 September 2018. The case arose from an incident on 8 February 2018 when he missed a bus driven by Ms Morgan, then caught it, boarded with his daughter and buggy, and confronted her. The tribunal accepted CCTV and contemporaneous documents, including Ms Morgan's occurrence report and Mr Mohammed's account, and found there were several plausible non-religious explanations for the bus not being boarded at the first stop. It rejected the claimant's assertion that religion or Muslim appearance was the only explanation for the incident.

The tribunal found that Mr Hiles's investigation meeting on 20 February 2018 was conducted fairly. The claimant had notice, accompaniment, and was shown the relevant material. The questions asked were held to be relevant and open to ask, and the decision that there was a case to answer at disciplinary hearing was reasonably open to Mr Hiles. The tribunal held that religion played no part in the investigation, and that the claimant had not shifted the burden of proof.

The claimant's grievance of 23 February 2018 was treated by HR as a complaint to be handled under the respondent's disciplinary procedure, and the tribunal found that Ms Johnson and management followed that procedure by passing it to Mr Loughlin. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was not told in advance that the grievance and disciplinary issues would be dealt with together, but it found that this was a procedural failing rather than discrimination. At the disciplinary hearing on 27 February 2018, and at the resumed outcome on 4 June 2018, the tribunal found Mr Loughlin's questioning, final written warning, and transfer to Cricklewood were fair and proportionate, and again unrelated to religion.

For the dismissal issue, the tribunal relied on the claimant's prolonged sickness absence, GP certificates for anxiety and depression, occupational health evidence, and the safety-critical nature of his driving role. It found that Mr Seers' decision on 20 September 2018 was based on objective, job-related concerns, including the claimant's refusal to engage fully with the capability process and the absence of up-to-date medical information. The tribunal held that religion played no part in the dismissal and dismissed all claims.