Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #bus-driver
- #pavement-driving
- #gross-misconduct
- #cctv-evidence
- #no-injury
- #length-of-service
Key facts
- The claimant drove his bus onto the pavement to overtake another bus during rush hour.
- The claimant admitted the manoeuvre and apologised.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct based on the incident.
- The respondent's decision-maker did not know the claimant's race or religion at the time of dismissal.
- The claimant's appeal was rejected after review of the evidence and his driving record.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for the respondent as a bus driver.
-
Incident occurred
Claimant drove his bus onto the pavement to overtake another bus on New Kent Road.
-
Fact-finding interview
Mr. Skeet interviewed the claimant; claimant admitted the manoeuvre but denied threatening the other driver.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Mr. Barker dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct (breach of rule 28 – driving standards).
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed, arguing the penalty was too severe.
-
Appeal hearing
Mrs. Ryder upheld the dismissal after reviewing CCTV and the claimant's record.
The legal issue
Whether the dismissal of a bus driver for driving onto a pavement was fair, and whether the respondent's conduct during the disciplinary process amounted to harassment related to race or religion.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- The unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The direct race and religious discrimination claims were withdrawn at the start of submissions.
- The harassment claims were dismissed as the tribunal found no evidence that the conduct related to the claimant's race or religion.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A single serious safety breach can justify dismissal even for a long-serving employee, especially in public transport roles.
- Employers should ensure disciplinary decision-makers are unaware of protected characteristics to avoid discrimination claims.
- Withdrawing discrimination claims at the start of a hearing may limit the tribunal's ability to consider them fully.
- CCTV evidence can be crucial in supporting an employer's reasonable belief in misconduct.
A serious safety breach leads to dismissal
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for a single act of dangerous driving. The bus driver, who had 13 years of service, drove his bus onto a pavement to overtake another bus during rush hour. He admitted the manoeuvre and apologised, but the employer decided that this breach of driving standards amounted to gross misconduct.
The tribunal accepted that the employer genuinely believed the driver had committed misconduct. The decision-maker had reviewed CCTV footage and interviewed the driver before deciding to dismiss. The appeal panel also reviewed the evidence and upheld the decision, noting the driver's previous driving record.
What the employer did right
The employer followed a fair process: a fact-finding interview, a disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied, and an appeal. The decision-maker was not aware of the driver's race or religion, which helped defeat the discrimination claims. The tribunal noted that the employer's reference to 'terrorism' in the disciplinary meeting was not related to the driver's protected characteristics but was a comment on the seriousness of the manoeuvre.
What this means for similar claims
This case reinforces that employers in safety-critical industries can treat serious breaches as gross misconduct even when no injury occurs. Employees should be aware that admitting a serious error does not guarantee a lesser penalty. For those considering a discrimination claim, it is important to have clear evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic – mere speculation is unlikely to succeed.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed for refusing alcohol test after collision: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing a breath alcohol test following an at-fault collision. The tribunal also dismissed his discrimination and victimisation claims.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.
Customer service assistant dismissed for attempted strike on teenager: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
A customer service assistant who tried to strike a teenage customer with an open hand was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled. His race discrimination claims against third-party security guards were also dismissed.
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
