First Glasgow Ltd v Robertson [2012] UKEAT 0052_11_2203
Published on: 13/04/2012
Issues Covered:
Dismissal
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
Mr Robertson was employed as a bus driver by First Glasgow Limited. The appellants introduced CCTV systems into all of their vehicles. The Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct arising from his having, on two occasions in October 2010, interfered with a CCTV camera in the driver‟s cab in that he covered it with a microphone. He had received a prior final written warning in respect of an unrelated matter in May 2010.Two other bus drivers had been disciplined for similar misconduct prior to October 2010.The respondent was disciplined in respect of his actions in relation to the CCTV camera. Thedecision following his disciplinary hearing was that he was to be dismissed for gross misconduct. He appealed. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was substantively unfair because the decision to dismiss the Claimant as compared to giving others a final written warning for similar conduct amounted to a lack of parity of treatment, such as would not have been the action of a reasonable employer. The Tribunal ordered reinstatement taking account of 'judicial knowledge that the respondent has been advertising vacancies for bus drivers'..70The Appellants submitted that the Tribunal had erred in finding that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed because they had failed to take account of the fact of his prior written warning which distinguished him from the two employees who had received warnings instead of dismissal. Secondly, they submitted that the Tribunal had erred in deciding to order reinstatement.The Court rejected the employer's argument that the ET had failed to distinguish between employees on the basis of the claimant already having been given a final written warning -they had not relied on that when dismissing the claimant. However, the decision to reinstate the driver, based on the knowledge of the tribunal that the employer was looking to recru it drivers, was referred back to the tribunal to reconsider because they had not discussed the remedy with the parties at the time.http://bit.ly/HNdqXb
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 13/04/2012
Recent Case Law
Morais v Ryanair DAC [2025]
21/01/2025
B (Trading as C) v A [2025]
21/01/2025
Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd [2025]
14/01/2025
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →
