Case 4100557/2017 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: S/4100557/2017 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on the th of September 2017 at pm Employment Judge: J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS (Sitting Alone) Mr J Black v Fife Scottish Omnibuses Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100557/2017
- Decision date
- 12 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joseph
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: S/4100557/2017 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on the th of September 2017 at pm Employment Judge: J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS (Sitting Alone) Mr J Black
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 11 September 2017, Employment Judge J G d'Inverno considered documentary evidence, agreed facts and submissions on the respondent's application for a deposit order. The issue before the tribunal was the claimant's allegation that his summary dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses for the purposes of section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judge was not satisfied, at that stage in the proceedings and before oral evidence, that the allegation had little reasonable prospect of success, and the respondent's application for a deposit order was refused.
The judgment records agreed admissions for the purposes of the final hearing. These included that the claimant answered his mobile telephone while driving on the journey from Aberhill Depot to Inverness on 14 January 2017 on two occasions, that one of those occasions was not an emergency situation, and that use of a mobile telephone while driving could constitute a criminal offence. It was also agreed that the respondent's policy handbook prohibited the use of a mobile telephone while driving except in an emergency, and that picking up and operating the phone, even momentarily, would breach that policy.
The claimant's account recorded in the notes of the disciplinary hearing was that he had needed to know how to get to Inverness Depot and had also been thinking about results from his GP, and the disciplinary officer responded that the obvious issue was a breach of company policy and the law. The judgment records that the claimant accepted he had done something wrong. The case was continued to the final hearing listed for 21, 22 and 26 September 2017; this judgment did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal claim or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Open preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the respondent's application for a deposit order because it was not satisfied, at that stage and before oral evidence, that the claimant's unfair dismissal allegation had little reasonable prospect of success. The claim was continued to the final hearing; no final liability decision was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- little reasonable prospect of success
- paragraph 39 of Schedule 1 to the ETs (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regs 2013
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.