Members: Mr Ashraf Martha McAllister Ms Fiona Ingram v Represented by: Ms D Flanagan - Solicitor JHP Transport Ltd — 2018

The claimant, Ms Fiona Ingram, presented a claim on 18 April 2018 alleging direct sex discrimination after her dismissal as an HGV Class 1 driver. The respondent accepted that she had been dismissed, but said the reason was that she had five accidents in a short period, had received additional training, had shown no improvement, and posed a health and safety risk. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Mr Richard Sims, Mr John Campbell, Mr Kevin Miller and Ms Kimberley McCrimmon.

The tribunal found that the claimant had qualified as an HGV Class 1 driver in April 2016, started with the respondent on 24 February 2017, and was dismissed on 27 November 2017 after a fifth reversing-related incident. It accepted that she had earlier been given a second chance, underwent additional reversing training with Mr Miller, and was also allowed to practice in her own time. The tribunal preferred Mr Campbell's and Mr Miller's evidence to the claimant's on the key factual disputes and found that the claimant had not shown improvement after the extra training.

In relation to comparators, the tribunal found that the claimant's named comparators David Munro, Gary Black and Scott Rauttenberg were employed by Farm Field Fresh Ltd, not by the respondent, and that the two companies were not associated employers within section 231 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also held that, in any event, the circumstances were materially different because the claimant had five accidents in four months, whereas the comparators had fewer incidents over longer periods and the claimant had received more training than other qualified drivers.

The tribunal rejected the alternative hypothetical-comparator case as well. It accepted that a hypothetical male driver with the same history of five reversing-related accidents, after additional training and with no sign of improvement, would have been dismissed for the same health and safety reasons. It considered the workforce gender balance, but said that the fact most drivers were male was not sufficient on its own, particularly as the respondent employed female drivers and had recruited others. The complaint of direct sex discrimination was therefore dismissed and no award was made.