Bus driver dismissed for running a red light: fair dismissal despite procedural flaws
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a bus driver with five years' service who drove through a red light, finding the employer's decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #red-light-offence
- #speeding
- #one-handed-driving
- #disciplinary-hearing-in-absence
- #appeal-cured-defects
Key facts
- The claimant drove a bus through a red light on 6 February 2020.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on 10 June 2020 for gross misconduct.
- The disciplinary hearing was held in the claimant's absence after confusion about video attendance.
- The appeal hearing on 26 August 2020 upheld the dismissal.
- The employment tribunal found the dismissal fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Incident
The claimant drove bus 8867 through a red light, speeding and driving one-handed.
-
Fact-finding meeting
Satinder Uppal held a fact-finding meeting with the claimant; the claimant was suspended.
-
Sick leave begins
The claimant was signed off sick with stress-related problems until 31 July 2020.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
The disciplinary hearing was held in the claimant's absence; he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed the dismissal decision.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal hearing took place; the claimant attended with his union representative.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
-
Appeal outcome
The appeal was dismissed; the decision to dismiss was upheld.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Douse heard the claimant's application to amend his claim; wrongful dismissal amendment granted, discrimination amendments refused.
-
Final hearing
Employment Judge Anderson heard the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims over three days.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for driving through a red light was fair and whether the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that Abellio London Ltd acted reasonably in treating the red-light offence as gross misconduct.
- The disciplinary hearing was held in the claimant's absence due to confusion about video attendance, but the appeal hearing was conducted properly with the claimant and his union representative present.
- The appeal process cured any earlier procedural defects, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a bus driver endangering public safety.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A fair appeal can cure procedural defects in an earlier disciplinary hearing, so employers should ensure appeals are thorough and properly conducted.
- For safety-critical roles like bus drivers, even a single incident of dangerous driving can justify summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
- Employees should actively engage with the disciplinary process and clarify attendance arrangements to avoid hearings proceeding in their absence.
- Union representation can help employees navigate disciplinary and appeal processes, but the employer must still ensure the process is fair.
A single red light ends a five-year career
A bus driver with five years' service was summarily dismissed after being caught on camera driving through a red light, speeding, and driving one-handed. The incident, which occurred on 6 February 2020, led to a fact-finding meeting and suspension. However, the driver was signed off sick with stress before the disciplinary hearing could take place.
Confusion over video attendance
The disciplinary hearing eventually went ahead on 10 June 2020, but in the driver's absence. There was confusion about whether he and his union representative would attend via video link. The employer proceeded and dismissed him for gross misconduct. The driver appealed, and a properly conducted appeal hearing took place on 26 August 2020, attended by the driver and his union rep. The appeal upheld the dismissal.
Tribunal finds appeal cured defects
The employment tribunal accepted that the original disciplinary hearing was procedurally flawed because it was held in the driver's absence. However, the appeal process was thorough and fair, and it cured those earlier defects. The tribunal concluded that dismissal for running a red light was within the range of reasonable responses for a bus driver, given the serious risk to public safety. The claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
What this means for similar cases
This case highlights the importance of a fair appeal process. Even if the initial disciplinary hearing is flawed, a properly conducted appeal can save the dismissal from being unfair. For employees in safety-critical roles, a single serious error can justify dismissal. The case also shows that tribunals will look at the overall fairness of the process, not just individual steps in isolation.
Similar cases
Trainee nursing associate dismissed while on sick leave: procedural unfairness but no compensation
A trainee nursing associate was unfairly dismissed after a disciplinary hearing went ahead while she was signed off sick following her mother's death. The tribunal found the process unfair but awarded no compensation, ruling she would have been dismissed anyway.
Bus driver dismissed for speeding and running a red light: dismissal upheld as fair
A bus driver with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV showed him speeding and running a red light, leading to a customer complaint. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Delivery driver dismissed for speeding: a fair decision despite live warning
An online delivery driver with a live final written warning was fairly dismissed after speeding 30% over the limit. The tribunal upheld Sainsbury's decision, finding it fell within the band of reasonable responses.