Bus driver dismissed for exaggerating back pain after covert surveillance: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 14 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after covert footage showed her driving and shopping while on sick leave for back pain. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covert-surveillance
- #sick-pay-fraud
- #bus-driver
- #occupational-health
- #gross-misconduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a bus driver from 2 April 2007 until dismissal on 19 May 2021.
- She was absent from work from 2 March 2021 due to lower back pain, supported by GP fit notes.
- Covert surveillance on four days in April 2021 showed her driving, shopping, and walking without apparent difficulty.
- In a sickness review on 6 May 2021, she initially said she was not shopping or driving, but later admitted to both when shown the surveillance.
- The respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct, believing she had exaggerated her symptoms and falsely claimed sick pay.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fair, holding that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief and followed a fair procedure.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a bus driver for Metroline Travel Ltd.
-
Sickness absence began
Claimant reported really bad back pain and started sick leave.
-
First fit note
GP issued fit note stating unfit for work due to low back pain until 21 March 2021.
-
Occupational health appointment
Telephone appointment with OH; report stated she was struggling with daily activities.
-
Surveillance day 1
Claimant observed driving, shopping, and carrying bags without apparent discomfort.
-
Surveillance day 2
Claimant observed walking and carrying shopping bags.
-
Surveillance day 3
Claimant observed driving to a school, wearing high heeled boots.
-
Surveillance day 4
Claimant observed driving to school and walking normally.
-
Sickness review meeting
Claimant told manager she was resting, not shopping, and not driving; then shown surveillance evidence.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended investigation; matter referred to disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing held with Justine May; decision to dismiss for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for exaggerating symptoms and falsely claiming sick pay.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by James Wright; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in investigating and dismissing the driver for misconduct (exaggerating sickness symptoms and falsely claiming sick pay), including whether the covert surveillance was proportionate and the procedure fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The employer held a genuine belief, on reasonable grounds, that the driver had exaggerated her symptoms and dishonestly claimed sick pay.
- The investigation was reasonable: covert surveillance was proportionate given the nature of the allegations, and the driver was given a fair opportunity to respond.
- The decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Covert surveillance can be a reasonable investigation tool if there are genuine concerns about dishonesty, especially when the employee is on sick leave for a condition that should limit mobility.
- Employers should give employees a chance to explain surveillance evidence before making a final decision, as Metroline did here.
- Inconsistencies between what an employee tells their employer and what is observed can amount to gross misconduct, even if the employee has long service.
- A fair procedure includes proper investigation, a disciplinary hearing, and an appeal; tribunals will check each step.
When sick leave and surveillance collide
A bus driver with 14 years' service went off work with lower back pain in March 2021, supported by GP fit notes. During a routine sickness review in May, she told her manager she was resting at home, not shopping, and not driving. But Metroline Travel Ltd had already commissioned covert surveillance on four days in April, which showed her driving, walking without difficulty, and carrying shopping bags – on one occasion wearing high-heeled boots.
Confronted with the footage, the driver admitted she had been driving and shopping but said she had not been dishonest. The company dismissed her for gross misconduct, concluding she had exaggerated her symptoms to claim sick pay she was not entitled to.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal rejected the driver's claim that the dismissal was unfair. It held that Metroline had a genuine belief in her misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation. The surveillance was proportionate given the nature of the allegations, and the driver was given a fair chance to respond at the disciplinary hearing and appeal. The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a bus driver – a safety-critical role where trust and honesty are essential.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that long service does not automatically protect an employee if there is clear evidence of dishonesty. Employers can use covert surveillance when they have a legitimate concern about fraudulent sick pay claims, provided the investigation is fair and the employee is given an opportunity to explain. For employees, it is a reminder that what you say to your employer about your condition must match what you are actually able to do – and that inconsistencies can have serious consequences.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Enquiry unit advisor dismissed for abusive messages: premeditated conduct justified dismissal
An enquiry unit advisor who sent threatening WhatsApp messages and emails to his line manager was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected claims of disability discrimination.
Project manager dismissed for planting listening device: tribunal upholds dismissal
A project manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after a listening device was found in his boss's office, with wires leading to his desk. The Liverpool tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.