Claimant v London Underground Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal previously found at liability that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent based the dismissal of the claimant's appeal on lack of qualifications without properly appraising the adequacy of his newly obtained qualifications and without giving him the opportunity to respond. No reasonable employer could treat his paper qualifications as insufficient when they were on the face of it sufficient at the time of the appeal.
Facts
This was a remedy hearing following a finding of unfair dismissal. The claimant had been dismissed as a Plant Fitter for lack of qualifications. Although he obtained relevant qualifications before his appeal was concluded, these were not properly considered. At the remedy hearing, the claimant sought reinstatement or re-engagement. The respondent argued he lacked the necessary post-qualification experience now required for safety critical roles and that he would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
Decision
The tribunal refused reinstatement and re-engagement on grounds of impracticability, finding the claimant did not meet genuine safety critical requirements including 2 years verifiable post-qualification experience. The tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award, finding that even with a fair appeal procedure the claimant would likely have been fairly dismissed within 2-3 months once the respondent had properly considered the adequacy of his experience for the safety critical role.
Practical note
Even where an unfair dismissal is established, reinstatement or re-engagement will not be ordered where the employee cannot demonstrate they meet genuinely designated essential requirements for safety critical roles, and a 100% Polkey reduction may apply where the employer would inevitably have dismissed fairly shortly thereafter.
Adjustments
The tribunal found that even if the appeal had been conducted fairly, the claimant would likely have been fairly dismissed within 2-3 months on grounds of lack of demonstrable post-qualification experience necessary for the safety critical Plant Fitter role. The respondent would have introduced a requirement for 2 years verifiable post-qualification experience which the claimant could not demonstrate.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3308895/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Plant Fitter
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep