Yard controller with 30 years' service unfairly dismissed after radio failure caused collision
A yard controller with 30 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a 16-second delay in stopping a train due to a radio failure. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate and the procedure fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant had been employed for 30 years, the last 21 as Yard Controller.
- On 4 June 2022, a shunting manoeuvre ended with a powerless train hitting buffers, causing £25,000 damage.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross negligence after a 16-second delay in stopping the train following a radio failure.
- The employer failed to interview witnesses about known radio problems and did not inform the claimant of his right to call witnesses.
- The tribunal found the investigation and procedure were outside the band of reasonable responses.
- The tribunal applied a 60% Polkey reduction, finding a 40% chance the claimant would have been retained with a fair procedure.
Timeline
-
Incident
During a shunting manoeuvre at Norwich Crown Point Depot, a radio failure led to a 16-second delay in stopping the train, resulting in a buffer collision causing £25,000 damage.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing for alleged negligence. The letter did not specify the right to call witnesses or include the yard safety plan.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, citing a 30-35 second delay and lack of concentration. Previous warnings were considered.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal was dismissed without detailed reasons; later a letter on 13 September provided some explanation.
-
ET1 claim filed
The claimant filed claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
-
ET3 response
The respondent filed a response denying all claims.
-
Hearing day 1
The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Mr Turner, and respondent witnesses Mr Mellar and Mr Davies.
-
Hearing day 2
The tribunal continued hearing evidence and submissions.
-
Judgment
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and wrongful, with a 60% Polkey reduction. Remedy to be determined.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was grossly negligent, and whether the investigation and dismissal process were fair in all the circumstances.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that the employer's investigation was procedurally flawed. The employer had not interviewed witnesses about known radio issues and failed to inform the claimant of his right to call witnesses. A 60% Polkey reduction was applied, meaning the claimant would have been dismissed anyway in 60% of scenarios had a fair procedure been followed. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. Remedy is to be determined.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct a reasonable investigation before dismissing for misconduct, including interviewing relevant witnesses and considering alternative explanations.
- Employees should be clearly informed of their right to call witnesses and present evidence at disciplinary hearings.
- Long-serving employees may have a stronger expectation of procedural fairness, and tribunals will scrutinise departures from established policies.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal finds a chance the employee would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
When a radio failure led to a collision
A yard controller with 30 years' service was dismissed after a shunting manoeuvre ended with a powerless train hitting buffers, causing £25,000 damage. The incident involved a 16-second delay in stopping the train following a radio failure. The employer cited gross negligence, but the tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
What went wrong in the investigation
The employer failed to interview witnesses about known radio problems on the day of the incident. The claimant had been told about static interference with some radios, but this was not properly investigated. The disciplinary hearing invitation also did not inform the claimant of his right to call witnesses, which the tribunal found fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
What this means for similar cases
This case highlights the importance of thorough investigations in safety-critical roles. Even where there is a genuine belief in misconduct, a flawed procedure can render a dismissal unfair. The 60% Polkey reduction reflects the tribunal's view that there was a 40% chance the claimant would have been retained had a fair process been followed. Employers should ensure they follow their own policies and give employees a full opportunity to respond to allegations.
Similar cases
Dismissed for electrical coding error: procedural flaw in appeal panel leads to unfair dismissal finding
A manager with 19 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over an electrical safety classification. The tribunal found the dismissal substantively fair but procedurally unfair because the appeal was heard by one manager instead of the required two-person panel.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Unfair dismissal win but zero compensation: procedural flaws didn't save manager
An operations manager with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into financial irregularities, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway.
Global Head of Marketing dismissed for redundancy after salary stopped: £89,013 awarded
A tribunal found that a medical technology company unfairly dismissed its Global Head of Marketing by making him redundant without consultation, and awarded him £89,013 including £74,800 in unpaid salary.