Bus engineer dismissed for telling driver to continue with brake fault
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a bus engineer with 16 years' service who told a driver to continue driving despite a brake shudder. The decision confirms that safety-critical roles require strict compliance.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #safety-critical-role
- #bus-engineer
- #failure-to-inspect
- #phone-issue
- #gross-misconduct
- #fair-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was a Running Shift Service Engineer responsible for bus fleet safety.
- On 4 July 2020, a driver reported brake shuddering; the claimant advised the driver to continue driving without inspecting the bus.
- The claimant admitted he did not inspect the bus because he did not know the route.
- The respondent investigated and held a disciplinary hearing, finding gross misconduct.
- The claimant was dismissed without notice for safety-critical negligence.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fair and within the band of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Running Shift Service Engineer.
-
Incident report
A driver reported brake shuddering; claimant advised driver to continue driving without inspecting the bus.
-
Claimant's report
Claimant submitted his report on the incident, stating he told the driver to drive to Northolt.
-
Investigation letter
Respondent invited claimant to an investigatory meeting regarding alleged misconduct.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended investigatory meeting; he admitted he did not inspect the bus due to not knowing the route.
-
Resignation offered
Claimant submitted resignation but later withdrew it after discussion with James Harvey.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing held by Bill Harvey; claimant represented by union rep.
-
Dismissal letter
Respondent sent outcome letter confirming dismissal for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal letter received
Claimant received the dismissal letter, which had been delayed in the post.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair and whether the employer was entitled to dismiss without notice for breach of contract.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that the dismissal was fair by reason of conduct. The employer's decision to dismiss without notice was also upheld.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant, a Running Shift Service Engineer, was responsible for bus fleet safety.
- On 4 July 2020, a driver reported brake shuddering; the claimant advised the driver to continue without inspecting the bus.
- The claimant admitted he did not inspect because he did not know the route.
- The employer's disciplinary procedure listed negligence compromising safety as gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the band of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- In safety-critical roles, even a single failure to follow procedures can justify dismissal, regardless of long service.
- Employers should ensure their disciplinary policies clearly define gross misconduct, especially regarding safety breaches.
- Employees in safety roles must not rely on convenience (e.g., not knowing a route) to avoid inspections when a fault is reported.
- A fair investigation and disciplinary process, including giving the employee a chance to respond, can protect an employer's decision.
- Long service does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the misconduct is serious enough.
A costly shortcut
A bus engineer with 16 years' service lost his job after telling a driver to keep driving despite a brake shudder. The tribunal found the dismissal fair, highlighting that safety-critical roles demand strict compliance.
On 4 July 2020, a driver reported that when she applied the brakes, the steering wheel and whole bus shuddered. The engineer, who was responsible for the safety of the bus fleet, advised her to continue driving without inspecting the vehicle. He later admitted he did not inspect because he did not know the route.
The employer investigated and held a disciplinary hearing, concluding that the engineer's failure was gross misconduct under its policy, which listed 'negligence compromising safety' as a dismissible offence. The engineer was dismissed without notice.
What the tribunal said
The tribunal found that the employer's decision was within the 'band of reasonable responses'. Although the engineer had long service, the safety breach was serious. The employer had carried out a reasonable investigation and given the engineer a chance to respond. The tribunal also noted that the engineer had previously been subject to disciplinary proceedings and should have been aware of the policy.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that in safety-critical industries, employers can dismiss for a single serious failure, even if the employee has many years of service. For employees, it is a reminder that convenience or assumptions do not justify ignoring safety protocols. For employers, it underscores the importance of having clear policies and following a fair process.
The claim for breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) also failed, as the employer was entitled to dismiss without notice for gross misconduct.
Similar cases
Train driver dismissed after positive cannabis test: zero-tolerance policy upheld
An employment tribunal has ruled that Arriva Rail London fairly dismissed a train driver of 10 years who tested positive for cannabis metabolites in a random drug test, rejecting his defence that the result was caused by CBD oil.
Train operator dismissed for refusing hair follicle drug test: dismissal fair
A London Underground train operator was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to provide a hair sample for drug testing, the tribunal has ruled.
Dismissed for failing to complete drug treatment: a conduct decision that was fair
A Customer Services Supervisor for London Underground was fairly dismissed after being discharged from residential drug rehabilitation for threatening behaviour. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
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.