Case 4104654/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Edward McAllister v Represented by: Mr S Connolly - Solicitor First Glasgow — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104654/2018
- Decision date
- 9 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Edward McAllister
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a bus driver from 23 March 2000 and was dismissed on 12 December 2017 after a collision with a pedestrian on Dumbarton Road. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal in respect of notice pay; an age discrimination claim was withdrawn. The respondent said the dismissal was for conduct after a reasonable investigation.
The tribunal found that the CCTV footage showed the pedestrian becoming visible before the point of impact and that the bus continued to accelerate until after the collision. It preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses, including the investigator, the disciplinary manager and the appeal manager, and accepted that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had been guilty of misconduct capable of amounting to gross misconduct.
The tribunal held that the investigation was reasonable even though the claimant was not interviewed in advance and no third-party witnesses were interviewed. It relied on the accident report completed by the claimant, the CCTV footage, and the opportunity given at the disciplinary hearing for the claimant and his union representatives to review the footage and comment on it. It also rejected the argument that the decision had been predetermined.
On sanction, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had long service and that the pedestrian's behaviour had been abusive, but concluded that dismissal was still within the band of reasonable responses given the safety responsibilities of bus drivers and the seriousness of the incident. The claim was therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Withdrawn before the hearing; no tribunal findings on the merits. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the tribunal found the dismissal for conduct was based on reasonable grounds, a reasonable investigation, and a sanction within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice-pay claim was not separately reasoned in the judgment and fell with the finding that dismissal for gross misconduct was fair and within the respondent's response range. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury v Hitt
- Polkey
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.