Cases1602418/2024

Claimant v Cardiff City Transport Services Limited

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£6,376

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because: (1) the employer lacked reasonable grounds for believing the claimant had breached internal health and safety rules or external regulations (Highway Code, Traffic Commissioner rules) – the prohibitions applied to using mobile phones whilst driving, not whilst stationary; (2) the investigation fell outside the band of reasonable responses, failing to verify the rules allegedly breached despite express challenge by the claimant's representative; (3) the decision to dismiss was unreasonable given the beliefs lacked reasonable foundation and the investigation was inadequate.

Facts

The claimant, a bus driver with 7 years' service and a clean disciplinary record, was dismissed for gross misconduct after using his mobile phone for 36 seconds whilst standing in the saloon area of his stationary bus with the engine running, waiting in a queue to refuel at the depot after finishing his shift. He was checking for messages from his disabled wife. The respondent alleged he breached health and safety rules, the Highway Code, and Traffic Commissioner guidance prohibiting mobile phone use whilst 'operating' a vehicle. The claimant maintained he had not been driving and believed the prohibition only applied to phone use whilst actually driving or in the cab.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The employer lacked reasonable grounds for believing the claimant had breached any internal or external rules, as the prohibitions clearly applied to using phones whilst driving, not whilst stationary outside the cab. The investigation was inadequate, failing to verify the actual content of the rules allegedly breached despite being challenged on this point. The decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses. The claimant was awarded a basic award of £5,876 plus £500 for loss of statutory rights, uplifted by 15% for failure to follow the ACAS Code.

Practical note

Employers must ensure disciplinary decision-makers have actually reviewed and correctly understood the specific rules alleged to have been breached, particularly when the employee challenges the interpretation of those rules, otherwise the dismissal risks being unfair for lack of reasonable grounds and inadequate investigation.

Award breakdown

Basic award£5,876
Loss of statutory rights£500

Adjustments

ACAS uplift+15%

Respondent failed to comply with ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, particularly Paragraph 4 (investigations); failure was unreasonable; 15% uplift awarded

Legal authorities cited

Foley v Post Office [2000] ICR 1283Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111British Leyland UK v Swift [1981] IRLR 91Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood UKEAT/0032/09St Mungo's Community Housing Association v Finnerty [2022] EAT 117Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 94DPP v Barreto [2019] EWHC 2024 (Admin)Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.94Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 reg.110Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.207AEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
1602418/2024
Decision date
8 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Bus Driver
Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister