In Metroline Travel Ltd v Taylor, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the employment tribunal had, in deciding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed, improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the employer and failed to correctly apply the "range of reasonable responses" test.
What was the legal issue?
In determining whether an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the tribunal must decide whether the employer had a potentially fair reason for the dismissal and whether, in all the circumstances, the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for that reason. This is known as the “range of reasonable responses” test. This test applies both to the decision to dismiss and to the procedure that the employer followed before reaching it.
It is not enough for the tribunal to conclude that it would have done things differently, i.e. it should not substitute its own view for that of the employer.
Facts
Mr. Justin Taylor, a bus driver for Metroline Travel Ltd (Metroline), was summarily dismissed following a physical altercation with another bus driver over a parking space at a bus depot.
Mr Taylor appealed, arguing that he had not seen the CCTV recordings before the investigation meeting, there had been no official complaint from the other driver, and he had not been accompanied at the investigation meeting. He also referenced Metroline’s appeal panel's consideration of a similar case involving another colleague, Mr Loughlin, who had been dismissed but then reinstated on appeal.
Decision
The tribunal ruled in favour of Mr Taylor, deeming his dismissal unfair. The tribunal highlighted flaws in the disciplinary hearing, such as the failure to rectify investigation shortcomings, including the lack of witness statements, evidence, or CCTV footage. The appeal hearing also did not address these flaws. The tribunal also conducted a detailed assessment of the cases of Mr Taylor and Mr Loughlin and decided that Mr Loughlin’s conduct had been worse.
Metroline appealed the decision. The EAT found that the tribunal failed to properly apply the "range of reasonable responses" test. The tribunal did not adequately determine if Metroline had reasonable grounds to believe Mr Taylor's actions were misconduct justifying dismissal. The tribunal’s criticism of Metroline for deciding not to request certain evidence was also unclear about whether that decision was nonetheless reasonable. The EAT concluded that the tribunal had improperly substituted its own view for the employer's, rather than evaluating if the employer's decision was within the reasonable range of responses.
The tribunal also made an error in the weight it gave to the Loughlin case. Metroline argued that Mr Taylor’s lack of remorse distinguished the cases. The tribunal's role was to assess whether, in all the circumstances, this view was within the range of reasonable responses, and not to make its own determination on whether Mr Taylor’s conduct was in fact worse than Mr Loughlin’s. Again, the tribunal had substituted its own view for that of the employer.
Comment
The core issue was whether Metroline's dismissal process and decision were fair and reasonable, and if the tribunal correctly applied legal standards. The outcome underscores the need for thorough and fair investigations in dismissal cases. Employers must have reasonable grounds for dismissal and follow reasonable procedures to avoid successful unfair dismissal claims. The decision also highlights the EAT’s role in correcting tribunal errors, ensuring fairness and justice in employment disputes.
Frances Rollin