Cases6018181/2024

Claimant v Metroline Limited

1 December 2025Before Employment Judge HarrisonWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the respondent held a genuine belief that the claimant committed gross misconduct (bringing company into disrepute, physically assaulting a passenger, and breaching safety policies by leaving his bus to chase an assailant). The respondent had reasonable grounds for this belief based on CCTV footage and investigation. The investigation was fair and reasonable, and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant argued he acted in self-defence and was supported by police conclusions, but the tribunal found the respondent's differing interpretation of the CCTV was reasonable and within the band of reasonable responses.

Facts

The claimant, a bus driver, witnessed a third party snatch a female passenger's necklace on 25 June 2024. He left his bus, chased the thief, and recovered the necklace. When the thief returned to the bus apparently to apologise, a physical altercation occurred in which the claimant punched the third party unconscious and restrained him on the pavement for approximately 30 minutes until police arrived. The claimant was arrested but police took no further action, finding he acted in proportionate self-defence. The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct on three grounds: bringing the company into disrepute, physically assaulting a passenger, and breaching safety policies by leaving his bus unattended.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the respondent held a genuine belief in the claimant's gross misconduct on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. Although the police concluded the claimant acted in self-defence, the tribunal held that the respondent's different interpretation of the CCTV evidence was reasonable and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, even considering the claimant's good intentions and clean disciplinary record.

Practical note

An employer may reasonably reach different conclusions from the police on the same CCTV evidence, and dismissal for gross misconduct can be fair even where criminal proceedings result in no further action, provided the employer's belief and investigation meet the Burchell test.

Legal authorities cited

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Burchell 1978 IRLR 379Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust v Mundangepfupfu UKEAT/0109/15

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.95ERA 1996 s.98(2)

Case details

Case number
6018181/2024
Decision date
1 December 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Bus driver
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister