A bus driver who was dismissed for using his mobile phone shortly before a collision has lost his unfair dismissal challenge, but has since returned to driving for another company, a tribunal has heard.
Peter Gleeson was fired from Go-Ahead Ireland Bus Ltd in December 2022 for what the company deemed gross misconduct after CCTV footage showed him using his phone while driving. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) upheld the dismissal, ruling that it was not unreasonable, despite arguments made by Gleeson’s trade union, SIPTU, that the penalty was too severe.
The incident occurred on November 24, 2022, near Prosperous, Co Kildare, when Gleeson, driving a bus on his way to Dublin, was involved in a collision with a van. Gleeson reported that the van, travelling at speed in the opposite direction, struck the bus’s side mirror before fleeing the scene. Although he later made contact with his depot, Gleeson was unable to recall if he used his phone or the radio to report the incident.
Following the crash, Gleeson continued his journey for another 30 minutes before a tyre blowout forced him to stop and allow his passengers to wait for another bus. CCTV footage from the bus was later reviewed and showed Gleeson using his mobile phone just before the collision occurred. This footage became central to the investigation, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
Go-Ahead Ireland’s disciplinary officer, Keith McDonnell, informed Gleeson in his dismissal letter that his use of the mobile phone while driving was considered a serious breach of safety protocols, with the company adopting a zero-tolerance policy towards phone use behind the wheel.
Gleeson’s union argued that the dismissal was too harsh, pointing out flaws in the company’s investigation process, particularly the lack of a collective agreement on using CCTV for disciplinary purposes. The union also contended that the decision to fire Gleeson had been made before the investigation was completed.
However, WRC adjudicator Catherine Byrne ruled that the use of CCTV in the investigation was acceptable and that Gleeson’s failure to adhere to safety protocols posed a significant risk of harm. She described the sacking as “severe” but ultimately “proportionate” given the potential consequences of using a phone while driving.
Byrne also acknowledged that Gleeson had been upset by his dismissal but noted that he had found work again after more than a year, albeit with another company. In her decision, Byrne rejected Gleeson’s claims of unfair dismissal and his request for statutory notice pay, affirming that the company’s actions were justified.
