Cases6003910/2024

Claimant v Veolia ES (Sheffield) Limited

30 January 2025Before Employment Judge ShulmanLeedsremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct (gross misconduct). The respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was guilty of misconduct (leaving vehicle without properly applying handbrake, entering crush zone, vehicle rolling and causing collision). A proper investigation was conducted including disciplinary and appeal hearings. The decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

There was no primary evidence that any money was owing to the claimant. The claim was dismissed during the hearing.

Facts

The claimant, a driver/loader with 17 years' service, was dismissed for gross misconduct after exiting his vehicle in a tipping hall without properly applying the handbrake. The vehicle rolled forward and collided with another vehicle driven by Gary Mitchell. CCTV showed the claimant entered a dangerous 'crush zone'. The claimant initially blamed Mitchell and claimed the handbrake was defective, but testing showed it worked correctly. At appeal, he changed his story and accepted full responsibility, admitting he used the handbrake as a 'scapegoat'.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed both claims. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was guilty of misconduct, conducted a proper investigation, and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses. The wages claim was dismissed as there was no evidence any money was owed.

Practical note

A long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for a single act of gross misconduct involving serious safety breaches, particularly where the employee gives inconsistent accounts and the employer conducts a thorough investigation.

Legal authorities cited

British Leyland (UK) Limited v Swift [1981] IRLR 91 CABHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(2)ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.98(1)

Case details

Case number
6003910/2024
Decision date
30 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
driver/loader
Service
17 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No