Member W Canning Tribunal Member M McAllister Mr Ian Craig v , Solicitor Openreach Limited — 2023

Mr Ian Craig was a long-serving Openreach Network Engineer with about 34 years' service when, on 20 August 2022, a photograph led the respondent to investigate unsafe working at Balmain Street, Montrose. At the fact-finding meeting he accepted that he had opened an underground box without guards, without the high-visibility clothing and helmet required, and without a roller bar or Gas Detector Unit. He said he had only been taking a quick look, but the tribunal found that he admitted the core allegations.

Ms Hogg dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a short disciplinary hearing, and Mr Lawrence upheld the dismissal on appeal. The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct under s.98 ERA 1996 and that the employer had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, following a reasonable investigation. It cited Burchell, Hitt, and the range of reasonable responses approach. The tribunal criticised aspects of the process, including the way the initial meeting was framed and some of the letters, but found those shortcomings did not make the dismissal unfair.

On remedy and sanction, the tribunal noted the dismissal was harsh given the claimant's long service and lack of live warnings, but it accepted Mr Lawrence's evidence that safety was taken seriously and that no suitable desk-based alternative role was available locally. It also accepted that the employer had checked whether the claimant's assertion about a common 'quick look' practice was correct and found no support for it. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

The age discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no facts capable of shifting the burden under s.136 Equality Act 2010. It rejected the suggested comparison with Mr Laing, because the circumstances were materially different and the photograph involving Mr Laing was said to relate to an incident years earlier in a closed-off area. The tribunal found no evidence of prejudice against workers over 50, and it treated the references to 34 years' service as points about experience and length of service rather than age.