Case 3328088/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Komusanac, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3328088/2017
- Decision date
- 19 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr I Komusanac, solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a bus driver and former Unite representative, brought claims of unfair dismissal and detrimental treatment for trade union activity against Metroline West Limited. The trade union detriment claim had been withdrawn before the hearing and was formally dismissed under rule 52. The unfair dismissal claim was brought under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been given temporary adjusted duties in May 2017 while he was off work with back pain, and that on 14 June 2017 he was waiting at a changeover point for duty 406 when an incident arose with Mr Blackford, an iBus Controller. It accepted that the disciplinary process that followed, including the investigation by Mr Loughlin and the hearing chaired by Ms Olawo-Jerome, concerned alleged threatening behaviour and foul and abusive language. The tribunal accepted that Ms Olawo-Jerome genuinely believed the claimant had used threatening, foul and abusive language, and that the real reason for dismissal was that conduct.
The tribunal held that the respondent had carried out a reasonable investigation, at the latest by the appeal stage chaired by Mr Dalby, and that there were reasonable grounds for the belief that the claimant had committed the misconduct. It found the CCTV footage with audio supported the respondent's witnesses and, although Mr Dalby drew one mistaken inference from the footage, that error did not make the dismissal unfair.
On comparative fairness, the tribunal rejected reliance on the Mr G and Mr O cases as truly comparable. It considered the more comparable case to be Mr O's, but held the circumstances were different because the claimant had previously received a final written warning in 2016 for using foul and abusive language, whereas there was no sign of a similar warning in Mr O's case. Taking all of that into account, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and the unfair dismissal claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The detrimental treatment claim for trade union activity was withdrawn by the claimant before the hearing and was formally dismissed under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed unfairly and that dismissal for misconduct fell within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority [1995] IRLR 305
- Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust UKEAT/0358/12/BA
- Diosynth Ltd v Thomson [2006] IRLR 284
- Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] EWCA Civ 49
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.