Metroline Travel Ltd v Justin Taylor

In an ordinary unfair-dismissal claim, an Employment Tribunal must assess whether the employer’s investigation, disciplinary decision and appeal process fell within the range of reasonable responses. It must not decide for itself what further evidence should have been obtained, what weight should have been given to evidence, whether an appeal should have referred new material back, or whether alleged comparators were materially alike.

The fairness of the process must be assessed as a whole. A tribunal must give reasons for concluding that an omission or decision fell outside the permissible range.

Metroline summarily dismissed the claimant, a bus driver, after a physical altercation with a driver employed by another bus company. The claimant succeeded before the Employment Tribunal in his ordinary unfair-dismissal claim. His separate claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 100(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed and was not challenged.

Metroline appealed against the finding of ordinary unfair dismissal. It contended that the Employment Tribunal had substituted its own assessment of the evidence, investigation, appeal process and comparator incident for the employer’s assessment, instead of applying the range-of-reasonable-responses test.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s decision on ordinary unfair dismissal was fundamentally flawed and was set aside.

2. The Tribunal had implicitly accepted Metroline’s reason for dismissal and its genuine belief that the claimant had committed misconduct. However, it did not assess whether Metroline’s investigation, conclusions and procedure were within the range of reasonable responses. Although it correctly directed itself on the law, it did not apply that law in its analysis.

3. It was insufficient to identify evidence which Metroline had not obtained, or evidence to which it had attached limited weight. The Tribunal had to decide whether the omission to seek that material, the reliance upon CCTV evidence, and the assessment of Ms West’s limited observations were nevertheless reasonable responses open to the employer.

4. The Tribunal also failed to assess the appeal process as a whole. It did not engage with the fact that the claimant had later seen the CCTV material and Ms West’s statement, or with the appeal panel’s explanation for not referring new evidence back to the dismissing manager. It had to explain, by reference to the range of reasonable responses, why those matters did not cure any earlier procedural defect.

5. In its treatment of the alleged comparator, the Tribunal again substituted its own view. It decided that the comparator’s incident was worse, assessed reputational damage, and determined the proper weight of remorse. The correct question was whether Metroline’s distinction between the cases, including its assessment of the claimant’s attitude to his conduct, was outside the range of reasonable responses.

6. The ordinary unfair-dismissal claim was remitted for rehearing before a different Employment Judge. The prior Tribunal had expressed clear views, creating a risk of a second bite at the case. The dismissal of the automatic-unfair-dismissal claim remained unaffected.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed Metroline’s appeal and remitted the ordinary unfair-dismissal claim for rehearing: [2025] EAT 4.
• Employment Tribunal, Watford: Found the claimant ordinarily unfairly dismissed in a decision sent to the parties on 3 October 2022. It dismissed his automatic-unfair-dismissal claim under section 100(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.