Bus driver dismissed after physical altercation: flawed investigation led to unfair dismissal
A bus driver with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after a physical altercation at a bus station. The tribunal found the investigation was flawed, but reduced compensation by 20% for his own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #physical-altercation
- #cctv-evidence
- #investigation-flaws
- #comparator-treatment
- #contributory-conduct
- #health-and-safety-defence-rejected
Key facts
- The claimant was a bus driver employed by Metroline Travel Ltd from 16 July 2018 until his dismissal on 25 November 2020.
- On 6 November 2020, the claimant was involved in a physical altercation with another bus driver at Turnpike Lane bus station.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, citing failure to follow policy and engaging in a physical altercation.
- The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process flawed, including failure to obtain witness statements and over-reliance on CCTV.
- The tribunal concluded the dismissal was substantively unfair but reduced compensation by 20% for the claimant's contributory conduct.
- The claimant's claim of automatic unfair dismissal for a health and safety reason was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Incident at Turnpike Lane
The claimant was involved in a physical altercation with a Sullivan's bus driver at Turnpike Lane bus station.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended following the incident.
-
Investigation meeting
An investigation meeting was held, but the claimant's union representative was unable to attend.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held, chaired by Mr McManus, where the claimant was accompanied by his representative.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal hearing was held, but the dismissal was upheld.
-
Tribunal hearing (day 1)
The substantive hearing began at Watford Employment Tribunal.
-
Tribunal hearing (day 2)
The hearing continued.
-
Reserved judgment on liability
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but reduced compensation by 20% for contributory conduct.
-
Remedy hearing
A remedy hearing was held to determine compensation.
-
Final judgment
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £10,241.76 in compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, and whether the principal reason for dismissal was a health and safety concern under section 100(1) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the dismissal was unfair because the investigation and disciplinary process were flawed. The respondent failed to obtain witness statements and relied too heavily on CCTV evidence. However, the claimant contributed to his dismissal by engaging in the altercation, so compensation was reduced by 20%.
- Total compensation: £10,241.76
- Basic award: not specified
- Compensatory award: not specified
- Polkey reduction: not applied
- Contributory conduct reduction: 20%
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should not rely solely on CCTV evidence; they must also obtain witness statements to ensure a fair investigation.
- A flawed investigation can make a dismissal unfair even if the employee's conduct was serious.
- Employees who contribute to their own dismissal through their conduct may see their compensation reduced.
- A claim for automatic unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds requires evidence that the principal reason was a health and safety concern, not misconduct.
This case shows how a flawed investigation can turn a potentially fair dismissal into an unfair one. The claimant, a PCV bus driver with two years' service, was dismissed after a physical altercation with another driver at Turnpike Lane bus station. The respondent, Metroline Travel Ltd, relied heavily on CCTV footage but failed to obtain witness statements from other drivers who were present. The tribunal found this to be a significant procedural failing.
What the employer could have done differently
Metroline Travel Ltd could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by conducting a more thorough investigation. The tribunal noted that the investigating officer did not interview potential witnesses, and the disciplinary hearing did not properly consider the claimant's explanation. A fair process would have included obtaining witness statements and giving the claimant a full opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights that even in serious misconduct cases, employers must follow a fair procedure. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's argument that the dismissal was automatically unfair for a health and safety reason, as the principal reason was the misconduct, not any health and safety concern. The 20% reduction for contributory conduct reflects that the claimant's own actions played a part in his dismissal, but the flawed process still made the dismissal unfair.
Similar cases
Shop assistant dismissed for personal transaction on Post Office till: unfair dismissal
A shop assistant with nine years' service was unfairly dismissed after using the Post Office till for a personal transaction. The tribunal found the investigation was insufficient and the dismissal procedurally unfair.
HGV driver dismissed for fight after being spat on: unfair dismissal but compensation slashed
An HGV driver with six years' service was unfairly dismissed by DHL after a physical altercation with a colleague, but his compensation was reduced by 85% for the likelihood he would have been dismissed anyway and by 50% for his own conduct.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.