Cases6000132/2024

Claimant v Keighley & District Travel Ltd

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the dismissal was for misconduct (fighting with another employee). The respondent held a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. Dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. Both employees involved in the altercation were treated similarly.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal was satisfied the reason for dismissal was gross misconduct. There was no credible evidence that the reason or principal reason was that the claimant had made a protected disclosure. The protected disclosure had no material influence in the decision to dismiss.

Detrimentfailed

The tribunal found the claimant's change in working pattern from 4 to 5 days per week was due to the respondent losing the Otley bus route contract, not because of the protected disclosure. There was no credible evidence that the change was done on the ground of, or materially influenced by, the protected disclosure. The claimant was placed on a waiting list with other colleagues.

Facts

The claimant, a PCV bus driver employed from June 2021, raised a grievance in July 2022 about parking safety issues at the depot. In November 2022, his working pattern changed from 4 to 5 days per week after the respondent lost the Otley route contract. In October 2023, the claimant was involved in a physical altercation with another employee over a parking dispute. CCTV showed the claimant on top of the other employee, punching him twice in the face. The claimant claimed self-defence. After investigation and disciplinary process, he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 24 October 2023, upheld on appeal.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair dismissal claims failed because the tribunal found the dismissal was for gross misconduct, based on a genuine belief held on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The protected disclosure claim was accepted but had no causal link to either the dismissal or the change in working pattern, which resulted from a legitimate business reorganisation.

Practical note

Employers can fairly dismiss employees involved in workplace violence even where self-defence is claimed, provided they conduct a reasonable investigation and act within the band of reasonable responses; a protected disclosure about health and safety will not render subsequent dismissal for unrelated gross misconduct automatically unfair.

Legal authorities cited

Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731Weddel v Tepper [1980] IRLR 96Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth UKEAT/0260/15Darnton v University of Surrey and Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] ICR 1026Fincham v HM Prison Service EAT0925/01Eiger Securities LLP v Korshunova UKEAT/0149/16/DMGoode v Marks and Spencer plc UKEAT/0042/09Royal Mail v Jhuti [2018] IRLR 251Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] IRLR 64British Aerospace v Mafe EAT 565/80BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] ICR 325Iceland Foods Limited v Jones [1982] IRLR 439Ucatt v Brain [1981] IRLR 225

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.47BERA 1996 s.43BERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
6000132/2024
Decision date
4 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
PCV bus driver
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No