docklands buses
fingal social democrats want to open docklands luas line to express north county buses .
fingal social democrats want to open docklands luas line to express north county buses. - urltoken
journey on the 135 (ehv4 bl15hbk) alexander dennis (volvo b5lh, hybrid) 10. 5m docklands buses
journey on the 135 (ehv4 bl15hbk) alexander dennis (volvo b5lh, hybrid) 10. 5m docklands buses - youtube
on 23 may 2015, docklands buses took over the operation of route 135 and route 541 was transferred from this garage to blue triangle' s rainham (be) garage .
on 17 september 2011, route 300 was transferred from this garage to blue triangle' s rainham (be) garage and docklands buses commenced operating routes 276, d6, d7 and d8 .
this bus was serving route 135 to crossharbour route 135: old street - crossharbour operated by go ahead london: docklands buses (silvertown garage, si) monday, july 6, 2015 at 14. 51
we have also introduced eight hydrogen fuel cell single deck buses onto route rv1, operating between covent garden and tower hill. two more vehicles will join in 2017. the only emission from these buses is water .
the airport) to use the docklands luas line to reduce average commutes by up to 30 minutes each day .
from the tube to buses, trams and riverboats, the history of transport in london is an interesting and varied one .
549 (south woodford station & loughton station) awarded to stagecoach east london with new euro - vi diesel single - decks. currently operated by go - ahead docklands buses with adl and dennis single - decks from silvertown (si) garage (11th march 2017) .
the first of the byd adl partnership’s 10. 8m long enviro200ev electric buses in provincial specification have been handed over to nottingham ...
using a combination of technologies including satellite tracking, ibus can pinpoint the location of buses, relaying information between the driver, garage and central control point .
route d8 has been re - routed to terminate at stratford bus station instead of stratford international station, switching terminus with route 108. additionally, the route has been fully converted by docklands buses to double - decker operation, scania omnicitys from metrobus transferred to silvertown (si) to complete this service change .
these vehicles use a combination of an ordinary diesel engine and an electric motor and reduce emissions of local pollutants and co2 by 30% compared to conventional buses .
we are well on our way to having europe' s largest fleet of hybrid buses. around 800 new routemasters are among the roughly 2, 000 diesel - electric vehicles .
while on the tour, you' ll also see dublin' s docklands area with great sights including the jeanie johnston famine memorial ship, the bord gáis energy theatre and the national convention centre .
go - ahead london operates over 190 day, night and school routes in london. if you wish to see the arrival time of your next bus, please select the relevant route and location below. only show buses that stop at these locations :
1 / 09 travel london: in service on r70 hv02 pdo 3 / 02 10. 5m dennis dart slf sfd2b2cr31gw16388, caetano nimbus scc 4268, b31d 3 / 02 si new to docklands minibus for 167 (silvertown) 5 / 07 withdrawn
“we looked at the docklands luas extension and already nearly all of it caters as a shared road space with normal traffic. the only locations where there are constraints is at the luas stops. there is an established transportation technology called kerb guided buses where a normal bus is fitted with guidewheels on its front wheels and these steer the bus between two kerbs built to precisely contain the a bus’s dimensions. the measurements between platforms at each luas stop between the point and amiens street exactly fit the design dimensions of a kerb guided bus system. ”
buses start at 9am daily, and arrive at each stop every 15 minutes. you’ll enjoy live commentary from fáilte ireland trained guides, all native dubliners who will charm and entertain you. we also provide pre - recorded multilingual tours in 10 languages, which operate every 30 minutes .
12 / 08 on hire to travel london hv02 pcx 3 / 02 10. 5m dennis dart slf sfd2b2cr31gw16379, caetano nimbus scc 4264, b31d 3 / 02 si new to docklands minibus for 167 (silvertown) 4 / 02 si in service on 167 5 / 07 withdrawn
11 / 10 hct group, trainer hv02 ozu 3 / 02 10. 5m dennis dart slf sfd2b2cr31gw16301, caetano nimbus scc 4271, b31d 3 / 02 si new to docklands minibus for 167 (silvertown) 4 / 02 si in service on 167 2 / 07 si unusual on w19 5 / 07 withdrawn
8 / 14 be refurbished / repainted 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) ed 25 lx07 byl 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10171, mcv evolution 282, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 1 / 09 si 9 / 09 si
ed 18 lx07 byj 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10164, mcv evolution 275, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 1 / 09 si 6 / 11 be transfer with 167 (rainham) 1 / 12 be at plymouth for refurb / repaint (red) 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) 4 / 17 si transfer ed 19 lx07 byk 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10165, mcv evolution 276, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) * / 07 si used on 167 to debden 9 / 07 si
6 / 11 be transfer with 167 (rainham) 8 / 14 be refurbished / repainted 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) ed 21 lx07 byl 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10167, mcv evolution 278, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 1 / 09 si 9 / 09 si
6 / 11 be transfer with 167 (rainham) 2 / 12 be at plymouth for refurb / repaint (red) 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) ed 20 lx07 byl 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10166, mcv evolution 277, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 1 / 09 si 9 / 09 si
7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) ed 22 lx07 byl 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10168, mcv evolution 279, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 1 / 09 si 6 / 11 be transfer with 167 (rainham) 3 / 12 be at plymouth for refurb / repaint (red) 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) ed 23 lx07 byl 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10169, mcv evolution 280, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 8 / 08 si accident damaged: 8 / 08 nx into store (new cross) 1 / 09 si 6 / 11 be transfer with 167 (rainham) 9 / 11 be
7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) 4 / 17 si transfer ed 26 lx07 byl 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10172, mcv evolution 283, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 1 / 09 si 6 / 11 be transfer with 167 (rainham) 6 / 12 be repainted red 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) ed 27 lx07 byl 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10173, mcv evolution 284, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 1 / 09 si 6 / 11 be transfer with 167 (rainham) 8 / 14 be refurbished / repainted 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) ed 28 lx07 byl 5 / 07 10. 4m ad enviro200 sfd511ar16gy10174, mcv evolution 285, b29d 5 / 07 si new to docklands minibus for 167 & 549 (silvertown) 1 / 09 si 6 / 11 be transfer with 167 (rainham) 7 / 11 si return 3 / 12 si at plymouth for refurb / repaint (red) 9 / 14 be transfer 1 / 15 si transfer for 549 10 / 16 si reallocated to 300 7 / 17 rr transfer (riverside road )
every day commuters on express buses from fingal find the bus flying through as far as the port tunnel toll, then can take 30 minutes to reach the custom house. with proper prioritisation and the opening of the luas line this journey can be completed in four minutes allowing for a 15 minute journey time to the airport and a 20 minute journey time to swords. that’s why we named this project swords20. further details can be found at
“we first came up with this plan when we noticed that a right of way has been reserved from the point stop at the 3arena onto east wall road. and given the ongoing delays in both the metro north project and the swords swiftway bus rapid transit we began to explore whether this corridor could be used to allow buses from the airport and the rest of the north county to avoid the bottlenecks along north wall quay to the city centre. ”
today i visited dockland' s buses silvertown garage (si) with the permission of the go ahead london staff as i had received some information that some wvls for the d7 and ses for the 276 had been delivered to the garage. when i got to the garage there were half a dozen ses all 10. 8m and registered with lx11 plates and there were about 8 wvls, most of them blinded for the d8 and only one blinded for the d7 !
ae56 ouo 12 / 06 9. 2m alexander dennis dart slf sfd1hfcr56gw18932, mcv evolution 234, b29d 12 / 06 si new to docklands minibus for w19 (silvertown) ed 15 3 / 07 si numbered 1 / 09 si 5 / 11 be transfer with w19 (rainham) 1 / 12 be at plymouth for refurbishment repaint (all - red) 8 / 15 used on 462 to limes farm 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) ae56 oup 12 / 06 9. 2m alexander dennis dart slf sfd1hfcr56gw18933, mcv evolution 235, b29d 12 / 06 si new to docklands minibus for w19 (silvertown) ed 16 3 / 07 si numbered 1 / 09 si 7 / 08 be loan: used on 368 (rainham) 5 / 11 be transfer with w19 (rainham) by 12 / 11 be at plymouth for refurb / repaint (all - red) 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) 11 / 16 np transfer for 563 (northumberland park) 1 / 17 rr return ae56 ous 12 / 06 9. 2m alexander dennis dart slf sfd1hfcr56gw18934, mcv evolution 236, b29d 12 / 06 si new to docklands minibus for w19 (silvertown) ed 17 3 / 07 si numbered 1 / 09 si 5 / 11 be transfer with w19 (rainham) 1 / 12 be at plymouth for refurb / repaint (all - red) 7 / 16 rr transfer (riverside road) 11 / 16 np transfer for 563 (northumberland park) 1 / 17 rr return
3 / 12 nx red, black skirt 10 / 16 nx in collision on 108: front damage, soon repaired 12 / 16 nx withdrawn ae06 hck 4 / 06 10. 8m alexander dennis dart slf sfd3cacr45gw18608, mcv evolution 172, b29d 4 / 06 si new to docklands minibus for 368 (silvertown) ed 8 3 / 07 si numbered 11 / 07 be transfer to blue triangle with 368 (rainham) 1 / 09 be 4 / 11 bv into store (belvedere) 4 / 11 bx transfer to london central (bexleyheath) 5 / 11 nx transfer (new cross) 5 / 11 nx used on 108 8 / 11 nx from refurbishment / repaint in plymouth: repainted in red, charcoal skirt, yellow line, white roof 3 / 12 nx red, black skirt
go ahead london is a trading name of london general transport services ltd with registered number 02328489 and registered office 3rd floor, 41 - 51 grey street, newcastle upon tyne, ne1 6ee .
silvertown garage operates london bus routes 100, 135, 276, d6, d7 and d8 .
on 3 november 2007, route 474 was transferred to this garage from blue triangle' s rainham (be) garage .
on 1 october 2016, route 300 was transferred to this garage from blue triangle' s river road (rr) garage .
on 1 october 2016, routes 150 and 474 was transferred to blue triangle' s river road (rr) garage .
on 29 july 2017, route 100 was transferred from london general' s mandela way (mw) garage to this garage and route 300 was transferred from this garage to blue triangle' s river road (rr) garage .
ct plus will take over the operation of route d6 from 15 september 2018. tower transit will take over the operation of route d8 at the same time .
alexander dennis enviro 200 dart 10. 8m (se) for routes 276 and d6
alexander dennis enviro 200 dart 10. 4m / mcv evolution (ed) as a logistical spare
can' t find a community you love? create your own and start something epic .
privacy is a fundamental human right. this site uses cookies. read my cookie policy .
html public
- / / w3c / / dtd xhtml 1. 0 strict / / en
urltoken
appeal against a ruling that the claimant had been fairly dismissed. appeal allowed .
the claimant was a bus driver. following complaints and cctv footage showing poor driving the claimant was told that she should attend driving training which she refused to do. eventually she was suspended and then dismissed for gross misconduct. she appealed. the appeal was adjourned while she agreed to attend driver training. she failed the driving test and her appeal failed. she lost her claim of unfair dismissal at the et and she appealed .
the eat allowed the appeal. the only reason that appeared to have been given for the dismissal of the appeal was that she failed to display a satisfactory driving standard and that her dismissal was in the interest of public safety. however, the respondent allowed employees two attempts at driver training, and it was unclear whether the reason for dismissal was conduct or capability .
the employment tribunal dismissed her claim for unfair dismissal on the ground that she repeatedly refused to attend the training school and that the penalty of dismissal lay within the band of reasonable responses a reasonable employer might have adopted .
the employment appeal tribunal allowed her appeal and remitted the case to the employment tribunal on the ground that the employment tribunal erred in failing to make proper findings as to: (1) the reason (s) for the dismissal of the appeal, and (2) the reason (s) for and reasonableness of the appellant' s dismissal by reference to that or those reasons .
1. the appellant, ms jinadu, appeals against the judgment of an employment tribunal (chaired by employment judge goodrich), sent to the parties on 5 june 2014, following a hearing held at east london hearing centre on 11 - 13 march 2014, that she was not unfairly dismissed. in her claim form dated 28 august 2012, the appellant brought numerous claims including sex discrimination, age discrimination, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments in addition to a claim for unfair dismissal. this appeal is concerned solely with the unfair dismissal claim .
2. the appellant was employed as a bus driver by the first respondent (whom i shall refer to as
the respondent
) and previous employers from whom she transferred under tupe from 9 july 2002 until she was dismissed on 9 july 2012. her employment had transferred to the respondent on or around 17 september 2011. the bus garage at which she was based was the silvertown garage .
4. in response to the report he received, mr dalton called the appellant to a fact - finding meeting. she attended with mr morrison, her trade union representative. the outcome of the meeting was that mr dalton decided that, having viewed the cctv recording, her driving was below an acceptable standard. he told the appellant to arrange to have a driving assessment at the camberwell training centre on 25 may 2012. the centre was an in - house training centre for the respondent to train its bus drivers and, when required, to prepare them for external assessment. mr dalton confirmed this instruction in writing .
5. on 25 may the appellant failed to attend the driving assessment at the centre and instead attended mr dalton' s office with mr morrison. she told mr dalton, in response to him asking why she was there and not at the training centre, that she was not going because he was making her a scapegoat and using his position as a manager to bully her. there was some dispute as to the conversation that took place. however the tribunal noted at paragraph 53 of the decision that
whatever were the contents of the conversation it was abundantly clear … that the claimant was adamantly opposed to attending any training assessment. …
mr dalton was incensed that the appellant was refusing to comply with his instruction and he suspended her immediately without pay and required her to attend his office at 9am on 28 may. in suspending her without pay, mr dalton acted in breach of the appellant' s contract of employment, as he subsequently accepted .
6. on 28 may the appellant attended mr dalton' s office. he asked her if she had time to reflect on her refusal to attend the training centre and, if given the opportunity, whether she would now attend. she refused to attend. mr dalton informed her that he would refer the matter to the general garage manager and that cases referred in this way might result in dismissal. the appellant was instructed to attend a disciplinary hearing on 30 may and notified that a disciplinary award could include dismissal .
7. for reasons that are not relevant, the disciplinary hearing did not take place on that day but ultimately on 9 july 2012. it was conducted by mr russell, an acting general manager. the main points referred to in the minutes to the disciplinary hearing, which the tribunal accepted, are summarised at paragraph 70 of the tribunal decision. they include the following :
70. 6. mr russell asked the claimant why she had not gone to training school when mr dalton had requested her to do so. her response was
because i am not going. the inspector who reported me is against me .
70. 7. the claimant reiterated
no, i am just not going to go. you will have to sack me because i am not going. i will draw blood before going .
she further explained that the reasons were that the man complaining against her was drunk and they were not allowed to watch cctv of her (she was complaining, in other words, about showing the cctv footage) .
70. 8. mr russell asked her once again whether she was prepared to go and the claimant confirmed
no, but even if you sack me i am not going to training school .

8. the outcome of this disciplinary hearing was that, following an adjournment, mr russell reconvened the meeting, i understand on the same day, and notified the appellant that she had refused to comply with a clear instruction to attend training school without good reason, which was deemed gross misconduct. she was dismissed for gross misconduct and notified that she would be dismissed with notice pay. she would be paid weekly until her appeal was heard. she was notified of her right of appeal. she did appeal against her dismissal .
9. the appeal hearing took place on 9 october 2012. the cctv was watched by everyone present. discussions took place as to the appellant' s grounds of appeal and her allegations of unlawful discrimination. in the course of the discussion mr mahon, who conducted the appeal, stated that :
85. … there had been a clear instruction to attend the training school for assessment which was refused and because of that she was dismissed, and out of that she was now making allegations of discrimination. he asked whether these were now set aside and the claimant was now happy to follow the instructions of mr dalton to attend training school. the claimant withdrew her allegations of discrimination .
the outcome of the appeal was that mr mahon informed the claimant that the hearing was adjourned in order for her to attend the training school. he informed her that, fail or pass the training school, she would return to the appeal before being reinstated to the garage, and he would deal with the remainder of the driving standards issues and all other matters should she wish to continue with them and give her the opportunity to set out in a proper and concise way the evidence she wished to [ rely ] on .
10. the tribunal noted that the appellant expressed scepticism about attending the training school. the minutes show that her final comment was that, if she failed, it would be because they had asked them to fail her. she did not in fact attend training school on the date first scheduled. by letter dated 10 october 2012 she told mr mahon that she felt she was being bullied and intimidated into going to training school. mr mahon responded and urged her to reconsider. she replied by letter dated 17 october. she gave no indication that she was willing to attend driving school. later that month the claimant wrote again to mr mahon by letter dated 29 october, stating that she had made an arrangement to start driver training but had injured her knee. she requested lighter work .
11. mr mahon responded. he asked her to make a further appointment with the training manager when she was fully recovered. the claimant continued to be unfit to attend work. she then wrote to mr mahon on 6 march 2013. she informed him that she was now fit to work and requested a starting date and time. she made no reference to attending training school. mr mahon reminded the claimant by letter dated 13 march 2013 that he had adjourned her appeal against dismissal to enable her to attend the driving school for assessment and corrective training following an examination by the driving test examiner. he reminded her that the instruction remained in place .
12. the claimant attended training school on 26 march. she was required to attend corrective training. following the corrective training she took an assessment on 5 april, which she failed. the disciplinary appeal was reconvened on 30 april 2013 .
at the reconvened meeting the claimant set out her complaints about mr dalton and mr butterfield and various complaints of discrimination. the outcome of the appeal was to reject the allegations, and to reject the claimant' s appeal against dismissal so that she remained dismissed. even at this final hour, the gist of the claimant' s point at the reconvened appeal hearing seemed to be complaining about the treatment she had received from, particularly, the driver of the car that originally complained about her, mr butterfield and mr dalton; rather than seeking to persuade the panel to allow her to have further training and retake her assessment, so as to be able to pass it .
14. the tribunal' s conclusions in relation to the unfair dismissal claim are set out at paragraphs 159 to 161 of the tribunal' s decision. there was no issue as to whether the appellant was dismissed for a potentially fair reason. that being so, the tribunal had to determine whether the respondent had acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient reason to dismiss the appellant. the nub of the tribunal' s decision on that issue is at paragraph 159. 4 and paragraph 161 of the decision :
159. 4. the claimant was given numerous opportunities to change her mind, back down and attend training school. she had an opportunity when she attended for work rather than the training school. she could have changed her mind at any point between 25 may, when she refused, and 9 july, when her disciplinary hearing took place. even the appeal was adjourned to enable her to attend and the opportunity remained even after the claimant failed to comply with her agreement to attend the training school .
15. when i said that there was no issue as to whether the appellant was dismissed for a potentially fair reason, that was, it seems to me, the way that the tribunal proceeded when i consider those paragraphs, paragraph 159 to 161 .
( 1) in accord with the respondent' s grievance procedure, consideration should have been given to suspending the disciplinary procedure for a short period while the appellant' s grievances were dealt with .
( 2) the respondent did not consider bringing in another manager to deal with the disciplinary process, having regard to her complaints about mr butterfield and mr dalton .
( 3) the reason for her dismissal has been overtaken by events in that before the conclusion of the appeal she had attended the training centre .
( 4) her failure to pass the test amounts to a capability rather than a conduct issue .
… if she had completed the training satisfactorily and passed her assessment she would have returned to work without further action against her; and would not have received a disciplinary sanction. …
overall, therefore, we are satisfied that the procedures, although there were failings in some respects, were within the band of reasonable responses a reasonable employer might have adopted .
however the tribunal failed to identify what those failings were and whether they rendered the dismissal unfair and, if not, why not .
( 7) the appellant had not been charged with insubordination. this allegation was never put to her, and it was not open to the tribunal to rely on it, as it did at paragraph 161 of the decision, as justification for her gross misconduct .
18. in my judgment the tribunal was entitled to make the findings and reach the conclusions it did in relation to the respondent' s breaches of procedure. in particular, i reject mr ogilvy' s submission that the respondents were obliged to put the disciplinary investigation on hold until they had dealt with the appellant' s grievances. i also reject the submission that mr butterfield and mr dalton, in particular, should not have been involved in the disciplinary process, as the appellant had raised grievances against them. mr russell conducted the disciplinary hearing, and the appellant had no extant grievance in relation to him .
19. further, i reject mr ogilvy' s submission in relation to the use of the term
insubordination
by the tribunal at paragraph 161 of the decision. it is clear, as the tribunal noted, that the respondents dismissed the appellant for her repeated refusal to attend the driving school, which the tribunal considered to be a reasonable instruction having regard to the need to secure the safety of passengers and the public generally and ensure that london' s bus drivers drive safely. the tribunal added :
the tribunal was entitled, in my view, on the evidence, to reach the conclusion that it did in paragraph 161 of the decision with regard to insubordination and the use of that term and what they state to be the true reason for the dismissal as recorded there .
20. however i do consider the tribunal' s decision to be deficient in one very important respect. mr maccabe, who appears for the respondents, accepts that, under the respondent' s procedures, the appeal amounts to a rehearing. the tribunal' s conclusions on the unfair dismissal claim are set out at paragraphs 159 to 161 of the decision, to which i have referred, which led to the decision at paragraph 162 that the claimant' s unfair dismissal claim fails .
21. paragraphs 159 and 160 deal in express terms exclusively with the respondent' s procedures during the disciplinary investigation including the disciplinary hearing and the appeal. the first sentence of paragraph 161, which i have read, but i repeat, reads as follows :
we have little or no hesitation in concluding that the sanction or penalty of dismissal lay within the band of reasonable responses a reasonable employer might have adopted, even allowing for the claimant' s length of service. …
at the reconvened meeting the claimant set out her complaints about mr dalton and mr butterfield and various complaints of discrimination. the outcome of the appeal was to reject the allegations, and to reject the claimant' s appeal against dismissal so that she remained dismissed. …
23. at no point does the tribunal set out, comment on or make any findings in relation to the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal. i am informed that there was no letter or anything in writing following the appeal setting out the reasons for dismissing the appeal. we do, however, have the notes of the reconvened appeal hearing, which run to some 11 pages. in section 8 of that document, at pages 10 and 11, there is the decision. the relevant passage reads as follows .
having taken evidence here today we find no proof of harassment on the grounds of race, age or sex. we do however find strong evidence that links the public complaint to the cctv and the poor driving displayed whilst at camberwell. ms jinadu failed to display a satisfactory driving standard and this led to dmi orr' s decision .
in view of this and in the interest of public safety we conclude that ms jinadu' s appeal fails and she remains dismissed .
24. on its face the reason for dismissing the appeal related to the appellant' s poor driving. that, mr ogilvy submits, is a reason related to capability and not conduct and in this connection mr ogilvy points to paragraph 41 of the decision, which sets out the respondent' s procedures for training school, which indicate that only if a driver failed an assessment twice after corrective training would the driver be at risk of dismissal. mr maccabe submits that the reason for dismissal remained, as it had been at the time of dismissal, one of misconduct and that the tribunal was entitled to take into account all matters including her failure to pass the test when considering whether or not to allow the appeal .
25. it may be thought that mr mahon, on the appeal, acted very fairly to the appellant in the circumstances in adjourning the hearing and allowing her a further opportunity to attend the training centre and thereafter in giving her repeated opportunities to do so. however the fact is that he did, and on 13 march 2013 at paragraph 96 of the decision, he reminded her that he had adjourned the appeal against dismissal to enable her to attend the driving school for assessment and corrective training following an examination by the driving test examiner. he reminded her that the instruction remained in place. the decision continues at paragraph 97 :
the claimant attended training school on 26 march 2013. she was required to attend corrective training. following the corrective training she took an assessment on 5 april 2013, which she failed .
the disciplinary appeal, as paragraph 98 notes, was reconvened on 30 april 2013 .
26. in my judgment the tribunal erred in failing to make proper findings as to (1) the reason (s) for the dismissal of the appeal, and (2) the reason (s) for and reasonableness of the appellant' s dismissal by reference to that or those reasons. accordingly this appeal succeeds, and i direct that the case be remitted to the employment tribunal for those matters to be considered .
27. my present view is that there is no need for further evidence. the points that i have identified are matters of law that can be dealt with on the basis of the evidence that was before the tribunal and has been before this tribunal. however, if the tribunal hearing the case on the remission, having heard from the parties, is of the view that there should be further evidence on any matter relating specifically to the matters that are being remitted to them, then of course it is open to them in their discretion to hear further evidence .
28. mr ogilvy has made an application for costs following the judgment that i have delivered in relation to, or arising out of, the £1, 600 that the appellant has paid in court fees. the regime in relation to court fees and costs is explained by the president in a recent decision of look ahead housing and care ltd v chetty and anr ukeat / 0037 / 14 .
if the appeal tribunal allows an appeal, in full or in part, it may make a costs order against the respondent specifying that the respondent pay to the appellant an amount no greater than any fee paid by the appellant under a notice issued by the lord chancellor .
30. at paragraph 50 the president explains that underlying the principles that he has set out is the fact that fees are paid whatever the result. they are not refundable except perhaps in the most exceptional of circumstances, which very rarely if ever exist. accordingly what has to be achieved by application of rule 34a (2a) is justice between the parties as to which party should effectively incur the payment of fees, which viewed as between them is a common expense incurred simply because there was an appeal .
31. the nub of my decision is that the tribunal failed to give reasons for dismissing the appeal, which was a re - hearing, as a result of which this tribunal does not know what the employment tribunal found to be the reason for the dismissal and is not able to assess whether the tribunal erred or not in finding the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances. mr maccabe submits that analysis was one that i made during the course of argument, not one that figured in the appellant' s notice of appeal or skeleton argument. that being so, there is no basis for effectively penalising the respondent. if the point had been put in the terms that i so found, then the respondents could have referred the matter to the tribunal in the ordinary way for the tribunal to respond. that, he submits, is what the appellant should have done and then the costs of this hearing would have been avoided .
32. mr ogilvy submits that, whilst he accepts that the point that i found in favour of the appellant is not expressly stated in those terms in the notice of appeal, nevertheless a fair reading of the notice of appeal and his skeleton argument and the decision of hhj serota qc on the sift should lead to the conclusion that at least in part the point that i have found in the appellant' s favour does figure in one or more of those documents .
33. i bear very much in mind what i have been told, that the appellant is a person with very limited resources, who has borrowed money, i am told, from the church in order to finance these proceedings and therefore this is an application which is of some real importance to her. however i have come to the conclusion that mr maccabe is correct in his submission that on the basis that i have so found, if the appellant, advised by mr ogilvy, who whilst he is not a qualified barrister or solicitor, has certain legal qualifications, if the point had been put in the notice of appeal or in the skeleton argument in the terms that i found in favour of the appellant, then the costs of this hearing may well have been avoided .
34. in those circumstances i reject the application. doing the best i can in terms of justice to both parties, i consider that it would not be right that the respondent should incur any of the costs of this hearing, appreciating as i do that of course the costs are the court fees that the appellant has had to pay in order to gain access to this tribunal .
the plain english guide to the employment claim process - from grievance to hearing .
appeal against a tribunal’s reserved judgment refusing the claimant’s application that the employment judge should recuse herself on the ground of apparent bias. appeal allowed and case remitted to a different tribunal .
the eat allowed the appeal. there was no suggestion of actual bias, but the employment judge had behaved in a way which gave rise to apparent bias. by intervening during the claimant' s evidence, to an extent that was substantially akin to cross - examination of the claimant, she had allowed herself to
descend… into the arena
and had thereby risked her vision becoming
clouded by the dust of the conflict
. the administration of justice must be, and must be seen to be, wholly fair and impartial. the case was remitted to a different tribunal .
the claimant brought proceedings in the employment tribunal raising various complaints, including detriments imposed on the ground of his trade union activities .
during the course of the hearing before the employment tribunal and before the conclusion of the respondent' s evidence there was an application that the employment judge (who was sitting with lay members) should recuse herself on the ground of apparent bias. the employment tribunal gave a reserved judgment refusing that application. the appeal was on the basis that the decision was wrong and the employment judge should have recused herself on the ground of apparent bias .
held the appeal would be allowed. there was no suggestion of actual bias but the employment judge had in the particular circumstances behaved in a way that gave rise to apparent bias. a fair minded observer who was informed of all the relevant facts would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. this was in particular because the employment judge had intervened during the evidence of the claimant and other witnesses which went beyond permissible clarification of the evidence to what was in substance cross - examination and the putting of points that were in the respondent' s favour .
1. this is the unanimous judgment of this appeal tribunal. this is an appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal sitting at east london sent to the parties on 24 november 2014. that decision, which was a reserved judgment, refused the application made on behalf of the claimant for the employment judge to recuse herself from continuing to hear the case. the employment tribunal comprised employment judge elgot sitting with mr richard boyd and mr peter lush. for convenience i shall refer to the claimant and respondent as they were in the tribunal below .
2. the claimant was employed by the respondent or its predecessor as a bus driver between 2007 and the date of his dismissal, 25 march 2013. he brought claims in the employment tribunal alleging detriment on trade union grounds contrary to section 146 of the trade union and labour relations (consolidation) act 1992 and also for unfair dismissal including an allegation of automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of trade union activities and membership .
3. the hearing of the claims started on 17 september 2014 and continued until 19 september. at the end of day two, 18 september, an application was made on the claimant' s behalf for the employment judge to recuse herself on the ground of apparent bias. at the tribunal' s request that was then set out in writing and made more fully on the following day, 19 september, with the respondent replying in writing. witness statements were filed in support of both the claimant' s application and the respondent' s response .
4. the decision was made by the employment tribunal as a whole using the contemporaneous notes taken by all three members of it (see paragraph 2. 3 of the judgment). at paragraph 3. 1 of its judgment the tribunal directed itself as to the applicable legal test as follows :
3. 1. … whether the conduct of this case would lead a fair minded and informed observer (in possession of knowledge of all the relevant circumstances) to conclude that there is a real (i. e. more than minimal) possibility that the employment judge was biased in the conduct of the case. …
5. in all the circumstances of the case the tribunal concluded that the application was not well founded (see paragraph 7 of the judgment) .
8. the employment judge concerned has filed comments on the allegations made on behalf of the claimant, and we have taken those fully into account. we have also taken full account of the
submission
from one of the lay members of the tribunal (mr lush) and finally the letter dated 3 february 2015 from the other lay member (mr boyd) .
9. we begin with the well - established test for apparent bias. for convenience, it is summarised in the recent judgment of langstaff p, as he then was, in east of england ambulance service nhs trust v sanders [ 2015 ] icr 293 at paragraph 37, where it was stated :
37. … the approach is well known, whether the fair - minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased (see porter v magill [ 2002 ] 2 ac 357, para 103) .
10. although the principles are familiar, it is worth emphasising certain aspects of them. first, the test is an objective one; it is not a subjective one. the question is not whether, for example, the claimant subjectively in his own mind and in good faith considers that there was a real possibility of bias. conversely, the test is not one to be determined subjectively by what was in the mind of the employment judge concerned or the lay members. the question is one for this appeal tribunal to determine as an objective matter .
11. secondly, it needs to be emphasised that what is alleged in this case is not actual bias but apparent bias. the test from porter v magill, which i have already cited, related to the issue of apparent bias. for this purpose it would not matter that there was no actual bias on the part of the employment judge. that is not alleged, nor does it need to be proved. even assuming, as we do, for the avoidance of doubt, good faith on the part of all concerned, there can be cases in which the objective test for apparent bias is made out .
12. the third point that i would wish to emphasise is that this sort of case illustrates well the advantages that this appeal tribunal can have in those cases where it is directed that lay members should sit with a professional judge, for this is because the test for apparent bias is helpfully considered in a case of this kind by this appeal tribunal including not only a professional legal member but also lay members .
14. the appeal tribunal then considered whether the judge' s evidence was competent and compellable. at paragraph 35 of his judgment lindsay j said in summarising counsel' s argument for the first respondent that :
16. later, in paragraph 36 of his judgment, lindsay lj observed that following locabail the view must be taken that as to primary fact a judge cannot be cross - examined in this area; that is, in the context of allegations of apparent bias .
17. i return to the relevant legal principles insofar as they were helpfully set out in the judgment of langstaff p in the east of england case. as the claimant fairly acknowledges, the facts and the precise issue in that case were different to the present case. in particular, the question arose whether it was permissible for an employment tribunal to conduct its own research on the internet as to matters that would otherwise be the subject of evidence before it. however, in the course of giving his judgment on that issue langstaff p restated certain fundamental principles that it is well to bear in mind. at paragraph 1 he stated :
1. a judge' s job is to adjudicate impartially on a dispute between the parties in the case before him. it is not to advocate the case for either .
a judge who observes the demeanour of the witnesses while they are being examined by counsel has from his detached position a much more favourable opportunity of forming a just appreciation than a judge who himself conducts the examination. if he takes the latter course he, so to speak, descends into the arena and is liable to have his vision clouded by the dust of the conflict. unconsciously he deprives himself of the advantage of calm and dispassionate observation. …
19. langstaff p observed that those comments must be read in the context in which they were made. it was a divorce case. there were advocates on both sides. the case was conducted before the civil courts in 1944. he stated :
17. … the context is therefore different, as it seems to us, from that which applies before an employment tribunal, as to which we will later say more .
20. in a similar vein langstaff p quoted the eloquent judgment of denning lj in jones v national coal board [ 1957 ] 2 qb 55 at paragraphs 18 and 19 of his judgment. at paragraph 20 of his judgment langstaff p turned to a case that is closer to the context he was concerned with - and indeed the present context - the decision of the court of appeal in mcnicol v balfour beatty rail maintenance ltd [ 2002 ] icr 1498. the principal judgment was given by mummery lj, who said at paragraph 26 :
26. as to the function of the tribunal it was submitted that it should adopt an inquisitorial and more pro - active role in disability discrimination cases, as they can be complex and involve applicants whose impairment leads them to minimise or to offer inaccurate diagnoses of their conditions and of the effects of their impairment. i do not think that it would be helpful to describe the role [ of ] the employment tribunal as' inquisitorial' or as' pro - active'. its role is to adjudicate on disputes between the parties on issues of fact and law. …
21. in his own assessment of the relevant applicable principles langstaff p said at paragraph 28 that proceedings in the employment tribunal
are not inquisitorial, as this tribunal seemed to think
. at paragraph 29 he specifically rejected the submission that rule 41 allowed a tribunal to make enquiries on its own behalf into evidence that was never volunteered by either party. he reiterated that:
docklands buses is a bus company operating in east london . it is a subsidiary of the go-ahead group and operates services under contract to transport for london . 
docklands buses is a bus company operating in east london. it is a subsidiary of the go-ahead group and operates services under contract to transport for london.
docklands buses is a bus company operating in east london. it is a subsidiary of the go-ahead group and operates services under contract to transport for london.