Train driver with 18 years' service unfairly dismissed for boarding after dispatch
A train driver who pulled an emergency lever to board a moving train was unfairly dismissed, but his compensation was cut by 75% for contributory fault.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #safety-critical-environment
- #long-service
- #clean-disciplinary-record
- #delay-in-process
- #contributory-conduct
- #benefit-of-the-doubt
Key facts
- The claimant was a train driver with 18 years' service and a clean disciplinary record.
- On 29 July 2020, he boarded a train after it had been dispatched by pulling the egress lever.
- The train had either not moved or moved only slightly (1.5 inches) at the time.
- The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct, citing breach of safety rules.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent failed to consider his long service and unblemished record, and the evidence on whether the train was moving was equivocal.
- The claimant's contributory fault was assessed at 75% due to his unsafe act.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began continuous employment as a train driver.
-
Incident at Gatwick
Claimant boarded a train after dispatch by pulling the egress lever.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation.
-
Witness interviews
Platform staff and OBS were interviewed by investigator Mr Yeates.
-
Claimant interviewed
Claimant was interviewed as part of the investigation.
-
Investigation outcome
Claimant informed he would face a disciplinary meeting for gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary meeting
Meeting chaired by Ms Waghorn; claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant's dismissal was confirmed in writing.
-
Appeal meeting
Appeal heard by Mr Bott; claimant accompanied by union rep.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal outcome letter sent; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing a train driver for gross misconduct after he boarded a train that had been dispatched, and if not, to what extent his compensation should be reduced for his own fault.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim for unfair dismissal. The employer had not properly balanced the driver's 18 years of unblemished service against the safety breach, and the evidence about whether the train was moving was unclear.
Compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing, but a 75% reduction has been applied for the driver's contributory conduct. No Polkey reduction was made.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees with clean records are entitled to have that history weighed heavily in disciplinary decisions.
- In safety-critical roles, employers must still consider whether the employee's actions were deliberate or a momentary lapse.
- A failure to give the benefit of the doubt when evidence is equivocal can make a dismissal unfair.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, compensation can be significantly reduced if the employee contributed to their own dismissal.
A moment of poor judgment
After 18 years as a train driver without a single blemish on his record, a moment of tiredness and stress led to a serious mistake. Rushing to get home, he boarded a train that had just been dispatched by pulling the emergency egress lever. The train had barely moved – only about 1.5 inches – but the act itself was a clear breach of safety rules.
What happened next shows how even the most safety-conscious employers can get the balance wrong. The driver was suspended, investigated, and ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct. But the tribunal found that the process failed to take proper account of his long service and clean disciplinary history. The evidence on whether the train was actually moving was also equivocal – something the employer should have resolved in the driver's favour.
What the employer could have done differently
Govia Thameslink Railway could have considered a final written warning instead of dismissal. The tribunal noted that the driver's actions were a momentary lapse, not a deliberate breach. By failing to weigh his 18 years of service and the uncertainty about the train's movement, the employer fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
The case is a reminder that even in safety-critical industries, a one-size-fits-all approach to gross misconduct can be unfair. The employer's own policies allowed for alternative sanctions, but these were not properly explored.
Why this matters
For employees, this case shows that long service and a clean record are powerful factors in unfair dismissal claims. For employers, it underscores the need to give the benefit of the doubt when the facts are unclear, and to consider whether a lesser penalty is more appropriate.
The driver's compensation will be reduced by 75% because his own unsafe act contributed to his dismissal. But the finding of unfairness means the employer must still pay something – a reminder that process and proportionality matter, even when the employee has made a serious mistake.
Similar cases
Night manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed for WhatsApp comments after raising pay concerns
A night manager who raised concerns about pay and holiday pay was unfairly dismissed after posting derogatory comments in a WhatsApp group. The tribunal found the real reason was her assertion of statutory rights.
11 years' service, clean record: misconduct dismissal upheld despite disability
A tribunal dismissed all claims from a former employee with 11 years' service and a clean disciplinary record, finding his misconduct dismissal fair and not discriminatory.
Mailman with 32 years' service unfairly dismissed over duplicate barcode incident
A mailman with 32 years of unblemished service was unfairly dismissed by Royal Mail after a customer complaint about a duplicate barcode. The tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process flawed, and reduced compensation by 20% for his own conduct.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.