Mr J Gilogley v Respondent — 2025

Mr J Gilogley worked for Air Products plc as a driver from 29 July 2013 until he was summarily dismissed on 12 April 2024. The dismissal followed two matters: an incident on 8 to 9 September 2023 involving the delivery of liquified oxygen to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, and a later issue in February 2024 about post-vehicle checks. The tribunal found that the claimant had been trained on the relevant incident-reporting procedure and on the need to complete vehicle checks, and that the respondent treated both matters as potential gross misconduct.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct and applied the section 98 ERA 1996 framework, including Burchell and the band of reasonable responses. It found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had failed to comply with health and safety procedures on both occasions, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s own contemporaneous account of the September 2023 incident, including a release of liquid oxygen and vapour, and found that he did not follow the required stop-and-report procedure. It also found that he failed to complete the necessary post-vehicle check in February 2024 or did not do so to the required standard.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s criticisms of delay, the framing of the allegations, the failure to speak to Mr Carruthers, the absence of suspension, and the appeal process. It held that the delay did not cause material prejudice and that the investigation and disciplinary process, viewed as a whole, were within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. It concluded that dismissal was a reasonable sanction for the seriousness of the two incidents and the claimant’s conduct during the process.

The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim failed. The claimant relied on PTSD and said the relevant "something" arising from disability was a failure to have perfect recall and/or varying his account, but the tribunal found very little evidence to connect the disability to that alleged something. It noted that no relevant medical evidence was produced, and that the claimant himself said at the disciplinary hearing that his disability would not affect the case. The tribunal found that the dismissal and the employer’s view that he was not being candid were based on its assessment of misconduct and his approach in the process, not on disability-related symptoms.

The wrongful dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that misconduct had occurred in both incidents and that each could properly be characterised as gross misconduct under the respondent’s disciplinary rules. It held that the claimant’s conduct undermined trust and confidence and entitled the respondent to dismiss without notice. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.