Mr C K Aninkorah v Arriva London North Limited — 2022

The claimant, a bus driver employed by Arriva London North Ltd from 2017, brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination and unlawful deductions. He did not attend the preliminary hearing on 16 May 2022. The tribunal proceeded in his absence after notice had been sent and attempts were made to contact him. The tribunal amended the respondent's name to Arriva London North Limited.

The unfair dismissal claim arose from the claimant's summary dismissal after CCTV footage showed him handling a mobile phone with an illuminated screen while operating the respondent's bus. The respondent's disciplinary materials and notices prohibited mobile phone use while driving or being in control of passenger-carrying vehicles and identified such conduct as capable of amounting to gross misconduct. The claimant did not attend the disciplinary hearing, but the tribunal found he later had an opportunity to advance his substantive defence on appeal. His argument that he had not made a telephone call was rejected on appeal because the rule was not limited to calls. The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out.

The race discrimination claim was treated as a direct race discrimination complaint in relation to dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant had identified no factor suggesting that race had anything to do with the decision to dismiss him. While noting the need for caution before striking out discrimination claims, the tribunal held there was nothing to support a conclusion that the dismissal was direct race discrimination and struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The unlawful deductions claim appeared to concern non-payment from 1 August 2020 to 11 September 2020, when the claimant had been asked to return from furlough but did not attend work and appeared to have been in Ghana. The tribunal held that no entitlement to pay arose because the claimant was not attending work when required, so there was no reasonable prospect of showing that less was paid than was properly payable. It also found the claim, presented in July 2021, appeared substantially out of time and that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant showing it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time. No remedy was awarded.