Mr S Wall v Somerset Passenger Solutions Limited — 2026

Mr Wall’s unfair dismissal claim against Somerset Passenger Solutions did not succeed. He worked as a driver from 5 June 2023 until his dismissal on 9 July 2025. The tribunal accepted that conduct was the principal reason for dismissal and rejected his submission that he had been dismissed for challenging the company’s position on seatbelts.

A passenger complaint about the journey on 13 June 2025 prompted an investigation into his driving. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to investigate both the complaint and further driving concerns revealed by CCTV. Mr Wall saw the full footage at the disciplinary hearing, and Dawid’s evidence was considered. The later failure to retain the footage was an error. Delays left Mr Wall waiting without updates, but being shown the complaint by a different manager caused no unfairness.

The tribunal found that escalating the alleged refusal to take part in a toolbox talk to disciplinary action was unreasonable. The respondent had not taken account of Mr Wall’s reading difficulties or the stress of the ongoing investigation. The dates in the meeting records were confused, and the tribunal preferred his evidence that the talk occurred on 16 June 2025. It also found that disciplining him for speeding was unreasonable on the available evidence and inconsistent with the speeding policy. During the disciplinary meeting, the speeding allegations had not been treated as established.

The remaining findings about one-handed driving, distance from the vehicle ahead, bus stop procedures and blocking a pedestrian traffic light were within the range of reasonable responses. The respondent could rely on Mr Wall’s admissions that he should have driven differently. These concerns involved unsafe driving similar to earlier misconduct for which he had received a final written warning. The tribunal also accepted that the speeding and disciplinary policies could be read together to permit the extended final written warning issued in December 2024.

Although the tribunal described reliance on the toolbox talk and speeding allegations as procedurally unfair, it concluded that the remaining misconduct would have led to dismissal on the same date. His admissions, the passenger complaint and the CCTV viewed at the disciplinary stage provided grounds for that conclusion, alongside his history of similar misconduct and the respondent’s duty to ensure passenger safety. The stage 3 internal appeal maintained dismissal but removed the gross misconduct finding, and Mr Wall was paid notice. The tribunal recorded no monetary award; the £105,707 figure appeared only in the list of potential remedy issues as a statutory cap.