EAT issues useful reminder on substitution mindset in Tribunal litigation

In the case of Taylor v Metroline Travel Limited, the EAT found that the Tribunal substituted its own judgment for that of the employer, rather than assessing whether the decision fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The range of reasonable responses test

In unfair dismissal claims, the Tribunal must determine whether the employer acted reasonably in treating the misconduct as sufficient to justify dismissal. An employer must:

• Genuinely believe the employee committed the misconduct
• Have reasonable grounds for that belief
• Conduct a reasonable investigation before making a decision

Tribunals must not substitute their own view but assess whether the employer’s decision fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.

Factual background

Mr Taylor, a bus driver for Metroline, was dismissed for gross misconduct after a physical altercation with a driver from another bus company. During the incident, he left his cab unattended, which Metroline deemed a serious breach of company policy. Following a disciplinary process, Metroline concluded that dismissal was justified.

Mr Taylor challenged his dismissal, arguing that the investigation was flawed and the sanction disproportionate. The Tribunal found Metroline had a genuine belief in his misconduct but ruled that the dismissal was substantively unfair, citing procedural deficiencies and Metroline’s treatment of a different case where another driver had been reinstated.

Metroline appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had wrongly substituted its own view rather than applying the correct legal test.

EAT decision

The EAT upheld Metroline’s appeal, finding that the Tribunal had not applied the correct legal framework in several key respects.

The Tribunal had identified procedural flaws in Metroline’s disciplinary process, including:

• Failure to disclose CCTV footage before the investigation meeting;
• Failure to obtain witness statements from key individuals;
• Overreliance on CCTV footage and an email complaint from the third-party bus company; and
• Inconsistent treatment in another case involving a Metroline driver who was reinstated on appeal.

However, the Tribunal did not properly consider whether these issues meant dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. Instead, it substituted its own assessment of the evidence. Given these fundamental legal errors, the EAT remitted the case to a fresh Tribunal for reconsideration to avoid bias or pre-determined views from the original Tribunal.

Learning points

This case highlights the importance of the range of reasonable responses test in unfair dismissal claims. Employers are not required to conduct a perfect investigation, but they must act within the bounds of reasonableness.  Employers should:

• Clearly document reasoning for disciplinary decisions, particularly where two similar cases are treated differently;
• Ensure procedural fairness, but recognise that minor defects will not necessarily make a dismissal unfair; and
• Use the appeal process effectively to remedy procedural defects where possible.

Conclusion

The EAT’s decision in Taylor v Metroline serves as a clear reminder of the Tribunal’s role in unfair dismissal claims. While employers must ensure that disciplinary decisions are well-reasoned, procedurally fair, and consistently applied, Tribunals must apply the correct legal test—assessing whether the employer’s decision fell within the range of reasonable responses rather than substituting their own judgment.

For more information or advice, please contact Rory Jutton in our Employment team on 0117 314 5286.