Bus driver dismissed for reading disciplinary letter while driving: fair decision upheld
A bus driver who was caught on CCTV reading a disciplinary letter while driving and running a red light was fairly dismissed. The tribunal rejected claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #bus-driver
- #cctv-evidence
- #self-suspension
- #attendance-record
- #grievance-delay
- #range-of-reasonable-responses
Key facts
- The claimant was a bus driver employed from March 2015 until dismissal on 11 August 2020.
- On 13 March 2020, CCTV showed the claimant reading a disciplinary letter while driving and running a red light.
- The claimant self-suspended on 13 March 2020 and was absent sick with stress from 16 March 2020.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct relating to driving standards and attendance.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was unsuccessful; a further paper appeal also upheld the decision.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced work as a bus driver for Arriva London (North) Ltd.
-
Incident and self-suspension
Claimant was seen on CCTV reading a disciplinary letter while driving and running a red light. He later self-suspended after a call with a controller.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant self-certified as unfit for work due to stress, later obtaining a sick note.
-
Suspension review in absence
A suspension review and fact-find meeting took place without the claimant; suspension continued with pay initially, then changed to SSP.
-
Grievance outcome
Mr Wyatt dismissed the claimant's grievance; SSP was converted to company sick pay from 26 May 2020.
-
Grievance appeal dismissed
Mr Parry dismissed the claimant's appeal against the grievance outcome.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Ms Bishop chaired a disciplinary hearing; the claimant was dismissed summarily for conduct (driving standards and attendance).
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Bland heard the claimant's appeal; upheld dismissal for driving standards but overturned the attendance reason.
-
Paper appeal decision
Mr Jones conducted a paper appeal and upheld the dismissal; the outcome letter was not sent to the claimant until later.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for conduct (driving standards and attendance) was fair, and whether the respondent breached contract by failing to pay contractual sick pay during self-suspension and sickness absence.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The dismissal for conduct was fair because the employer reasonably concluded that the claimant had committed a serious safety breach by reading a disciplinary letter while driving and running a red light. The attendance reason was overturned on appeal, but the driving standards reason alone justified dismissal. The breach of contract claim failed because the claimant was not entitled to sick pay during self-suspension (a voluntary absence) and the employer's policy did not provide for it in those circumstances.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can rely on CCTV evidence to support a conduct dismissal, especially where safety is at risk.
- Self-suspension (voluntarily staying off work) may not trigger contractual sick pay if the employer's policy requires actual unfitness for work.
- A poor attendance record can be a factor in dismissal, but it must be properly investigated and linked to the conduct issue.
- A dismissal can be fair even if one of several reasons is later overturned on appeal, as long as the remaining reason is sufficient.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how seriously employment tribunals treat safety breaches in safety-critical roles. The bus driver was caught on CCTV reading a disciplinary letter while driving and running a red light. He then self-suspended and went off sick with stress. The employer dismissed him for conduct relating to driving standards and attendance. The tribunal found that the employer acted reasonably in relying on the CCTV evidence and the claimant's own admission. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
What the employer did right
The employer followed a thorough process: suspension review, fact-finding, disciplinary hearing, and two appeal stages. The dismissing manager considered the claimant's long service but concluded that the safety breach was too serious. The appeal manager upheld the driving standards reason but overturned the attendance reason, showing that the employer was not inflexible. The tribunal noted that the claimant had a poor attendance record and multiple final cautions, which made dismissal for a further serious breach proportionate.
Why this result matters
For employees in safety-critical jobs, this case is a reminder that even a single serious breach of safety rules can justify dismissal, especially if there is a history of warnings. For employers, it shows that a fair process and clear evidence (like CCTV) can protect a dismissal decision. The case also clarifies that self-suspension is not the same as sickness absence – employees who voluntarily stay off work may not be entitled to sick pay unless their contract explicitly provides for it.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed for speeding and running a red light: dismissal upheld as fair
A bus driver with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV showed him speeding and running a red light, leading to a customer complaint. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
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.
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.
Security officer dismissed for leaving post: unauthorised absences justified gross misconduct
A security officer with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV footage showed he left his post without authorisation on multiple occasions. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.