Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Claimant, Mr E Kanyoro, a bus driver employed by Metroline West Limited, was dismissed on 4 August 2016 for gross misconduct. The dismissal followed an incident on 13 July 2016 where he failed to comply with instructions from Transport for London (TfL) revenue protection officers (RPOs), endangered public safety by driving erratically toward an RPO, and put the company in disrepute. The Employment Tribunal upheld the dismissal as fair, citing CCTV evidence of the Claimant's loss of control, refusal to admit wrongdoing, and the Respondent's reasonable conclusion that trust and confidence were irreparably broken. The Tribunal emphasized that the employer's actions fell within the band of reasonable responses, despite the Claimant's allegations of bullying and inadequate investigation.
Issues
- The Tribunal had to assess whether the employer's decision to dismiss the Claimant for gross misconduct was reasonable, considering the CCTV evidence showing his erratic behavior, loss of control, and safety risks to passengers and RPOs. The Claimant argued the dismissal was unfair due to bullying allegations and inadequate investigation, but the Tribunal found the evidence of misconduct sufficient.
- The Tribunal evaluated whether the investigation into the Claimant's conduct was fair and reasonable. The Claimant's representative criticized the lack of contact with passengers and failure to address bullying allegations. However, the Tribunal concluded the investigation was adequate, as the RPO's account was taken, the Claimant had opportunity to respond, and the CCTV provided clear evidence of the events.
- The Tribunal needed to determine whether the RPOs (revenue protection officers) had the authority to give instructions to the bus driver, as the Claimant's refusal to comply with their instructions formed a basis for his dismissal. The Big Red Book (TfL's handbook) does not explicitly state this authority, but the custom and practice suggest it exists. The Claimant argued he was unaware of this authority and could have checked via the Ibus intercom system.
Holdings
- The Tribunal determined that the dismissal was not unfair, as the employer had reasonable grounds to believe the Claimant committed gross misconduct by repeatedly failing to comply with RPO instructions and demonstrating a total loss of self-control, which compromised safety and led to an irreparable breakdown of trust.
- The Tribunal rejected the Claimant's argument that RPOs lacked authority to give instructions, noting that while the TfL handbook was unclear, the custom and practice indicated RPOs could direct drivers, and the Claimant could have verified this.
- The employer's belief in misconduct was upheld, based on the Claimant's erratic behavior toward passengers and RPOs, including shutting doors on passengers, revving the engine at an RPO, and failing to follow instructions, which constituted negligence and safety risks.
- The Tribunal found the employer conducted a fair and reasonable investigation, as the Claimant had ample opportunity to present his case, and CCTV evidence clearly established the sequence of events despite not capturing audio.
Remedies
The Claimant's claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Employment Judge concluded that the dismissal was not unfair, finding the Claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and justified termination. No other remedies or forms of relief were awarded.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied the test under s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, requiring the employer to show the dismissal was reasonable having regard to the circumstances including the size and resources of the employer. This was interpreted through the seminal case of British Home Stores v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379 (EAT) and further developed in Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23 (CA), emphasizing that Tribunals should not substitute their own view but assess whether the employer's decision fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Precedent Name
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
Cited Statute
Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
Smail
Passage Text
- The complete loss of self-control demonstrated by the CCTV was sufficient for them to conclude that they had no trust and confidence in his ability safely to drive the bus.
- However, the dismissal was not unfair.
- I have reminded myself of the guidance in Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23 (CA) that at all stages of the enquiry the Tribunal is not to substitute its own view for what should have happened but judge the employer as against the standards of a reasonable employer...