Case 3311549/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Knight v First MTR South Western Trains Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311549/2022
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Knight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal after being dismissed from his role as a Rail Operator 2. The respondent's disciplinary process concerned allegations that the claimant had restricted a contractor's access to the mess room and disabled toilet, removed a chair, and acted in an intimidating and demeaning manner towards colleagues.
The tribunal found that the respondent had conducted a thorough investigation, had complied with its own procedures and the ACAS Code, and had given the claimant opportunities to respond to the allegations. It noted that the respondent proceeded with the disciplinary and appeal hearings after considering occupational health and GP evidence about the claimant's health.
The tribunal concluded that the respondent was entitled to find that the claimant's conduct amounted to bullying and harassment, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated in the middle, but the outcome and core reasons are visible. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- range of responses of a reasonable employer
- ACAS Code
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.