Cases8001007/2024

Claimant v The North British Distillery Company Limited

8 May 2025Before Employment Judge J McCluskeyScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct (operating a forklift unsafely and making contact with another vehicle) and was potentially fair. The respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct supported by reasonable grounds including CCTV footage and witness statements. The investigation was thorough and fair, including reviewing CCTV, interviewing witnesses, and examining training records. The procedure was reasonable with proper notice, opportunity to be accompanied, and right of appeal. Dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses given the serious health and safety breach on a COMAH tier 1 site and the claimant's failure to show remorse or appreciation of the potential consequences despite extensive safety training.

Breach of Contractfailed

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant's conduct on 14 February 2024 amounted to gross misconduct. The CCTV clearly showed the claimant drove up close behind a tractor and trailer, raised his forks to trailer height, drove forward right up to the trailer with forks touching or in contact with it, and engaged in a series of manoeuvres moving forward while the tractor was reversing towards him. This was in breach of his training on maintaining safe distances and not engaging in horseplay. Such conduct undermined trust and confidence and justified summary dismissal without notice. Therefore the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed.

Facts

The claimant was a warehouse operative with 13 years' service at a distillery which was a COMAH upper tier site handling hazardous materials. On 14 February 2024, CCTV footage showed him operating a forklift truck unsafely behind a colleague's tractor and trailer: he drove up close, raised his forks to trailer height, made contact or came into very close contact with the trailer, and engaged in manoeuvres moving forward while the tractor was reversing towards him. The claimant had received extensive training on safe FLT operation and working on a COMAH site. He was investigated, suspended, and invited to a disciplinary hearing. At the hearing he acknowledged an error in judgement but maintained he was operating correctly. He was dismissed for gross misconduct without notice on 14 March 2024. He appealed but subsequently withdrew his appeal.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The reason for dismissal was conduct, which was potentially fair. The respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on reasonable grounds (CCTV evidence and witness accounts). The investigation was adequate and the procedure was fair, with proper notice, representation rights, and appeal opportunity. Dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses given the serious safety breach on a high-risk site, the claimant's training, and his failure to show remorse or understanding of the consequences. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.

Practical note

Employers can fairly dismiss for serious health and safety breaches on high-risk sites where CCTV clearly shows unsafe conduct contrary to training, even where an employee has long service and no previous warnings, if the investigation is thorough and the employee shows no remorse or understanding of the consequences.

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379British Leyland (UK Limited) v Swift [1981] IRLR 91Boys & Girls Welfare Society v McDonald [1996] IRLR 129Post Office v Foley and HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] IRLR 827Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288Briscoe v Lubrizol Ltd [2002] IRLR 607NC Watling and Co Ltd v Richardson [1978] ICR 1049Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.98(1)ERA 1996 s.98(2)ERA 1996 s.98(2)(b)ERA 1996 s.98(4)Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015ERA 1996 s.94

Case details

Case number
8001007/2024
Decision date
8 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Warehouse Operative
Service
13 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister