Train operator dismissed for opening doors on wrong side: unfair but no compensation
A tribunal found London Underground unfairly dismissed a train operator with 11 years' service for opening doors on the wrong side, but awarded no compensation because a fair process would have reached the same outcome.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #wrong-side-door-opening
- #failure-to-report
- #health-and-safety
- #comparators
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant opened train doors on the wrong side at Holborn station on 6 January 2022.
- She did not report the incident to the service controller as required by procedure.
- A customer complaint alerted the respondent to the incident.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but that a fair process would have led to the same outcome.
- The claimant's discrimination claims were dismissed as out of time and on the merits.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for London Underground as a train operator.
-
Incident at Holborn
Claimant opened train doors on the wrong side at Holborn station and failed to report it. A customer later complained.
-
Initial investigation
Claimant provided a handwritten statement and was interviewed by a duty reliability manager.
-
Further investigation meeting
Claimant was interviewed by trains manager Christophe Suant; she stated she had no recollection of opening the wrong side doors.
-
Disciplinary hearing scheduled
Claimant was invited to a company disciplinary interview (CDI) for gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
CDI took place; claimant was accompanied by union representative. Personal circumstances and mental health were discussed.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal chaired by Dale Smith; claimant's union representative provided comparator cases.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary dismissal upheld.
-
Tribunal claim presented
Claimant presented unfair dismissal claim; later amended to include discrimination claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair and whether the employer's failure to consider similar cases involving other employees made the process unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal found that London Underground unfairly dismissed the train operator because the disciplinary decision-maker did not properly consider comparator cases where other employees had received lesser penalties for similar safety breaches. However, the tribunal concluded that if a fair process had been followed, the outcome would have been the same — dismissal. As a result, the claimant received no compensation.
- Basic award: £0 (reduced to nil due to contributory conduct)
- Compensatory award: £0 (reduced by 100% Polkey reduction and 100% contributory fault)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consider how they have treated other employees in similar circumstances — failing to do so can make a dismissal procedurally unfair.
- Even if a dismissal is found unfair, compensation can be reduced to zero if the tribunal decides a fair process would have led to the same result.
- Employees who contribute to their own dismissal through serious misconduct may see any compensation reduced or eliminated.
A safety breach with serious consequences
In January 2022, a train operator with 11 years of service opened the doors on the wrong side of a train at Holborn station. She did not report the incident as required, and it only came to light after a customer complained. London Underground dismissed her for gross misconduct, citing the serious safety risk and the failure to follow reporting procedures.
The operator argued that the dismissal was unfair because other employees who had committed similar safety breaches had not been dismissed. She also brought claims of sex and disability discrimination, but those were dismissed as out of time and on their merits.
Where the process went wrong
The tribunal found that the disciplinary decision-maker had not properly considered the comparator cases put forward by the operator's union representative. This was a procedural flaw that made the dismissal unfair. However, the tribunal went on to consider what would have happened if a fair process had been followed.
It concluded that the operator's conduct — opening doors on the wrong side and failing to report it — was so serious that any reasonable employer would still have dismissed her. The safety implications were significant, and her long service did not outweigh the risk. As a result, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning no compensation was awarded for the unfair dismissal.
What this means for similar cases
This case highlights that a procedural error does not always lead to a compensation payout. Tribunals will look at whether the outcome would have been the same even with a fair process. For employees, it shows the importance of following safety procedures and reporting incidents promptly. For employers, it is a reminder to properly consider how similar cases have been handled — but also that a robust safety culture can justify dismissal even where process is imperfect.
Similar cases
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
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.