Mr C Wild v Veolia ES (Sheffield) Limited HELD in Leeds by CVP — 2025

The claimant, Mr C Wild, was employed by Veolia ES (Sheffield) Limited as a driver/loader from 1 November 2006 until his dismissal on 8 April 2024. The tribunal heard evidence from Ms E Johnson and Mr N O'Neill for the respondent, and from the claimant. It preferred the evidence of Ms Johnson and Mr O'Neill where there was conflict. The tribunal found that on 18 March 2024, in the tipping hall, the claimant left his vehicle to speak to another driver, failed to set the handbrake, and the vehicle rolled forward and collided with another vehicle. The CCTV showed the claimant outside the vehicle and in the crush zone, which the tribunal found was potentially dangerous to life and limb.

The tribunal found that the respondent investigated the incident, including a report on 22 March 2024, a disciplinary hearing on 5 April 2024, and an appeal hearing on 18 April 2024. At the disciplinary hearing, the claimant accepted the contents of the investigation pack, accepted the severity of the incident, and admitted he had not checked whether the handbrake had been engaged. Ms Johnson dismissed him for gross misconduct. On appeal, Mr O'Neill considered the matter independently and upheld the dismissal, concluding that gross misconduct was made out. The tribunal also recorded the claimant's earlier disciplinary record, but found it was not necessary to rely on that record because the conduct on 18 March 2024 was sufficiently serious to stand alone.

Applying sections 98(1), (2) and (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Burchell test, and the band of reasonable responses test from British Leyland v Swift, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that there had been a proper investigation. It held that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The unlawful deduction of wages claim was also dismissed because there was no primary evidence that any money was owing, and the tribunal noted a time issue if there had been such a claim.