Case No 4107001/2023Venue AberdeenHearing 5 February 2024
Between
Mr D HumeClaimantBluebird Buses LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge DateDate 7 February 2024
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The claimant, David Hume, brought an unfair dismissal claim. The respondent admitted the dismissal but claimed that the reason was conduct and that it was fair. E.T. Z4 (WR)[2]As there was no response to the respondent’s allegations in the ET3 Response Form, at the commencement of the Hearing I sought clarification of the claimant’s position.[3]I referred him to the Joint Bundle of Productions (“P”) and in particular the averments in the “Sheet Apart” to the Response Form (P.22-23).[4]The claimant accepted the accuracy of the following averments:- “4. 23rd August 2023 - a final written warning issued regarding conduct (unfounded allegations against a Trade Union Official). However, on 12th September 2023 that final written warning was reduced to a written warning on appeal. 5. 15th September 2023 - a final written warning (failure to pick up passengers, including refusal to pick up a young girl who was left standing at the bus stop on her own). 6. 13th October 2023 - formal warning (blame worthy accident)".[5]The claimant also accepted that, following a customer complaint on 2 October 2023, he was dismissed. He intimated an appeal against his dismissal but did not attend the Appeal Hearing.[6]The claimant explained that the basis for his claim related to the validity of the Final Written Warning which was issued on 23 August 2023.[7]However, that warning was reduced on appeal to a written warning.[8]I advised the claimant that it is not for the Tribunal to re-open previous warnings and consider whether they were legally valid unless there was an allegation that the warning was issued in bad faith or was “manifestly improper” (General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v. Carranza [2015] ICR 169 relying upon Davies v. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] IRLR 374).[9]The claimant advised that he was not in a position to allege that the respondent had acted in bad faith or that the previous warnings were “manifestly improper”. He also advised that he did not dispute that the respondent had received a customer complaint on 2 October 2023. He confirmed that it was the issuing of the original Final Written Warning on 23 August 2023 which was the basis for his claim.[10]I explained to him that my task would be to consider the reasonableness of the disciplinary proceedings after the respondent received the complaint on 2 October 2023, and whether, in all the circumstances, having regard to the fact that he had a current Final Written Warning his dismissal was a reasonable one.[11]In view of this, the claimant advised that he wished to withdraw his claim. I advised him that I would issue a Judgment to that effect. 20