Mr Z Rana v First Glasgow (No.1) Limited — 2017

Mr Rana, a bus driver for First Glasgow (No 1) Ltd, was dismissed after an incident on 22 February 2017 in which a passenger abused and then assaulted him, leaving him with a cut below his eye and significant blood loss. He said he had left the cab to use the toilet, had acted in self-defence, and had tried to restrain the passenger until the police arrived. The respondent relied on its safety training and policies, which required drivers to treat the cab as a safe area and to avoid physical contact with passengers.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the guidance in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct and that the respondent genuinely believed misconduct had occurred on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. It found that the CCTV, the claimant's own account, and the statement of the SPT Inspector supported the conclusion that Mr Rana left the cab when he should have remained there, did not return to the cab when he had opportunities to do so, and made physical contact with the passenger after the assault. The tribunal accepted that the incident was serious but held that the respondent had taken account of Mr Rana's long service, the provocation, and the fact that he had been assaulted.

The tribunal also considered Mr Rana's argument that another driver, Mr Hynd, had been treated differently. It found the position different because there was no evidence on the CCTV of an assault by Mr Hynd, and it refused the request to view further CCTV as a fishing exercise. Although the tribunal noted some procedural matters, including an incorrect date in correspondence and delays in communication, it held that these did not make the dismissal unfair. It concluded that dismissal, including summary dismissal, fell within the band of reasonable responses.

On holiday pay, the tribunal heard evidence that the respondent had calculated payment on the basis of Mr Rana's pro rata entitlement for the part of the holiday year worked, and the respondent said it had in fact overpaid him. Mr Rana produced no evidence of holidays taken or any alternative sum due, and the tribunal held that he had not discharged the burden of proving that any holiday pay remained outstanding. That claim was therefore also unsuccessful.