Mr D Stanworth v West Midlands Trains Ltd: 1301410/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The Claimant brings a claim of unfair dismissal following an incident where he was dismissed for gross misconduct. He was dismissed because a child became injured having been run over by a controlled emission toilet truck or “CET” for short.[2]Unfortunately, and tragically, the boy suffered several fractures as a result of his foot being run over by the CET which was on a wheeled truck and being manoeuvred by the Claimant at the time of the incident.[3]The Respondent argued that the Claimant acted in breach of safety rules. The Claimant argues that his dismissal was unreasonable.[4]At various points in this judgment, I refer to “SSOW” this means “safe system of work”.The hearing
[5]At the start of the hearing, the parties suggested that because there was a final salary pension scheme applicable to the Claimant’s employment, that they would simply deal with liability and requested that remedy was dealt with at a separate hearing if appropriate. Issues of Polkey and contributory fault were not discussed and the hearing proceeded on the basis of liability only.[6]Whilst unusual, I could see the benefit of a separate remedies hearing and as both sides agreed to this approach, I could see no reason why we could not proceed on that basis.[7]When it came to submissions, I was concerned to note that despite the agreement to consider liability only, submissions were being made by both counsel in their written closing arguments about these issues. Neither counsel put any issues about remedy to any of the witnesses.[8]This was raised and discussed before submissions were made and I decided that as the hearing had proceeded on the basis that there was an agreement between the parties before it commenced that they would try to deal with liability only, then it was not proper to consider any issues of remedy.