Bus driver dismissed after raising working time concerns: unfair dismissal for asserting statutory rights
A bus driver with seven months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after he raised grievances about unpaid travel time and working time breaches. The tribunal awarded £4,335.28.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #bus-driver
- #working-time-regulations
- #travel-time
- #inconvenience-payment
- #probationary-period
- #early-running
- #section-104
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a bus driver from 9 December 2019 to 8 July 2020.
- The claimant's contract stated his place of work was Weston Street Depot, Bolton.
- The claimant frequently finished shifts at Bury Interchange and had to travel back to the depot without pay.
- The claimant raised grievances about working time and pay from January 2020.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for unsatisfactory probation, citing attendance and early running.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 104 ERA 1996 because the claimant asserted his statutory rights under the Working Time Regulations.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a PCV driver non-fixed lines at Bolton depot.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant emailed grievance about working time and travel pay, citing Working Time Regulations.
-
Grievance meeting
Meeting with Mr Butler; claimant raised working time and pay issues, but no written outcome was provided.
-
Disciplinary meeting
Meeting with Mr Carroll about attendance; explanations accepted, but an advisory note was placed on file without claimant's knowledge.
-
Email about working time breach
Claimant emailed HR about a shift exceeding working time limits; travel payment started around this time.
-
First ET1 claim
Claimant issued first tribunal claim regarding failure to record working time.
-
Early running incident
Claimant ran bus early; a passenger complaint was received.
-
Investigatory meeting
Meeting with Mr Carroll about early running; claimant admitted running early.
-
Invitation to review meeting
Claimant invited to employment review meeting citing early running and attendance.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for unsatisfactory probation due to attendance and early running.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal under section 104; other claims dismissed.
-
Reinstatement hearing
Reinstatement refused due to breakdown of trust.
-
Remedy hearing
Award of £4,335.28 compensation; unlawful deductions claim struck out.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the bus driver was unfairly dismissed because he raised concerns about working time and pay, specifically asserting his rights under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's assertion of his statutory rights under the Working Time Regulations, not his probationary performance.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £0 (insufficient service)
- Compensatory award: £4,335.28
- Total: £4,335.28
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with short service can still bring an automatic unfair dismissal claim if the reason is asserting a statutory right, such as working time rights.
- Employers should be careful not to link performance management decisions to an employee's recent complaints about legal entitlements.
- Documenting genuine performance issues separately from any protected conversations can help defend against a section 104 claim.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the protection given to employees who assert their statutory rights, even during a probationary period. The bus driver had worked for Diamond Bus for just seven months when he was dismissed. He had raised concerns about unpaid travel time between his finishing point and the depot, and about shifts that exceeded working time limits. The tribunal found that these complaints were the real reason for his dismissal, not the attendance and early running issues cited by the employer.
What the employer could have done differently
Diamond Bus could have separated the performance issues from the working time grievances. The tribunal noted that the claimant's early running and attendance were not serious enough to justify dismissal on their own. If the employer had addressed the working time concerns properly and given the claimant a fair chance to improve on performance, the outcome might have been different. Instead, the dismissal was found to be automatically unfair because it was triggered by the claimant's assertion of his rights.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that the right to assert statutory rights under the Working Time Regulations is protected regardless of length of service. Employees who raise genuine concerns about working time breaches cannot be dismissed for doing so. For employers, it highlights the importance of handling performance issues independently of any complaints an employee may have made about their legal entitlements.
Similar cases
Franchise manager dismissed during probation wins £346 for unpaid notice
A Greggs franchise manager with six months' service was wrongfully dismissed when his employer failed to pay one week's notice. He was awarded £346 but his other claims – including race discrimination – were dismissed.
Sales assistant dismissed after complaining about 14-day working: automatic unfair dismissal
A sales assistant who was dismissed during her probation after complaining about working 14 consecutive days has won her unfair dismissal claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found the real reason was her assertion of a statutory right under the Working Time Regulations.
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.
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.