Metroline Travel Ltd v Mr Justin Taylor [2025] EAT 4

Facts

Mr. Taylor, a bus driver for Metroline, was dismissed following a physical altercation with a driver from another bus company over a parking space at a bus depot. Metroline summarily dismissed Mr. Taylor based on a complaint from the third-party company. Mr. Taylor admitted to the altercation but claimed he acted in self-defense due to Covid-related fears, and denied punching the other driver. A witness statement from a fellow bus driver, Ms. West, indicated that she had seen the fight, but not any punches. Metroline conducted an investigation and disciplinary hearing, relying heavily on CCTV footage of the incident, with the dismissing manager concluding Mr. Taylor had punched the third-party driver. Mr. Taylor appealed the dismissal, citing issues with the investigation process, including not seeing the CCTV footage before the investigation meeting.

Legal Issues

• Unfair Dismissal: The central legal issue is whether Mr. Taylor's dismissal was unfair, focusing on whether the employer’s process and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.

• Procedural Fairness: The ET found flaws in Metroline’s process and determined that these flaws were not rectified at the appeal stage. The issues included the following:

  • Failure to provide CCTV footage before the investigation meeting.

  • The fact that Ms. West's statement was not available to the investigation meeting.

  • Failure to request statements from the third-party driver and other witnesses.

  • The ET argued the disciplinary hearing did not allow Mr. Taylor to explain his version of events.

  • The ET found the appeal hearing did not rectify these flaws.

• Range of Reasonable Responses: The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the ET had erred in failing to apply the “range of reasonable responses” test, instead substituting its own view for that of Metroline regarding the investigation process and the decision to dismiss Mr. Taylor. This test considers whether an employer's actions, both in the investigation and the decision, were within the range of reasonable actions that a reasonable employer could have taken. The EAT found that the ET did not consider whether the employer’s decision not to seek certain witness statements or to rely heavily on the CCTV footage was within the range of reasonable responses.

• Comparator: The ET accepted Mr. Taylor's argument that his case was analogous to Mr. Loughlin’s but did not evaluate whether Metroline's conclusion to distinguish the cases was within the range of reasonable responses.

• Remedy: The EAT concluded that the ET’s judgment was fundamentally flawed and remitted the case to a different Employment Judge to reconsider the unfair dismissal claim.

Held

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that Mr. Taylor's dismissal was unfair. The ET noted flaws in the investigation and hearing, including failure to provide CCTV footage before the investigation meeting, failure to request statements from the other driver, and the manner in which the disciplinary hearing was conducted, and also that the appeal process did not rectify these flaws. The ET also found that a comparable case of another employee, Mr. Loughlin, was worse but that he was reinstated.

Comment

In essence, the case revolves around whether Metroline's dismissal process and decision were fair and reasonable, and whether the ET properly applied the legal tests in making its decision. The EAT found that the ET had substituted its own view for that of the employer, instead of considering whether Metroline's actions were within the range of reasonable responses.