Hehir v Metroline Ltd – fair dismissal or injustice?

The case of Hehir v Metroline Ltd has attracted national attention well beyond usual coverage of an Employment Tribunal decision, with intense media coverage and vocal political criticism following Metroline’s decision to dismiss a bus driver who chased down a thief and recovered a stolen necklace.

The underlying facts remain unusual: after Mr Hehir had retrieved the victim’s necklace and returned to the bus he was driving, the thief also returned to the bus, at which time Mr Hehir punched the thief unconscious. Mr Hehir claims that the thief had returned to cause an issue with the victim and that he was defending her. Metroline claim that the thief had actually returned to apologise and was assaulted unnecessarily. Metroline treated this, along with breaches of safety protocols and reputational concerns, as gross misconduct. The Tribunal, in accepting those conclusions, found that the employer had acted fairly and within the range of reasonable responses.

Public reaction, however, has been markedly different. Senior politicians, including shadow justice minister Kieran Mullan, publicly condemned the dismissal of the case as ‘shameful and unjust’, launching a petition demanding reinstatement and urging Metroline to reconsider. National outlets similarly portrayed Mr Hehir as a ‘hero’ whose actions instinctively responded to a violent theft and highlighted the police finding that his use of force had been proportionate and necessary.

It is worth remembering that the Tribunal’s reasoning is based on two factors only: Was the procedure used by the employer fair, and was the decision to dismiss within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in the same circumstances? While public commentary often focuses on moral instinct – applauding individuals who intervene in criminal incidents – the Tribunal does not assess the desirability of the outcome at the social level.

Metroline’s disciplinary managers reviewed CCTV evidence, heard detailed submissions, considered the claimant’s motivations, and applied established safety procedures designed to minimise risk to passengers and the public. Their conclusions, and the decision to dismiss, were found to be based on reasonable grounds and supported by a fair investigation, notwithstanding the opposing interpretation advanced by the police. The CCTV footage is, at time of writing, not available to the public but was shown to the Tribunal.

This case highlights the tension between societal expectations and the legal standards governing workplace conduct – particularly where employers owe a duty of care to their customers and their employees. It is, however, slightly unusual for expert evidence (provided by the police in this case) to not be heavily influential, bordering on conclusive, on the Tribunal’s decision. For employers, the judgment offers reassurance that a carefully run disciplinary process can withstand scrutiny even amid significant public and political pressure. For employees, it is a reminder that well‑intentioned actions may still breach their employer’s policies. The Tribunal’s decision had to strike a balance between the employer’s right to conduct a fair disciplinary hearing based on the policies and procedures they had in place and the wider societal impact of having individuals prevent and deter crimes.

If you would like support drafting policies, contact a member of our employment team today.

How To Contact Us:

To contact a member of our team, you can fill in our online enquiry form, email info@fraserdawbarns.com, or call your nearest office below. If you’d like to speak to a member of our team at one of our offices across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, visit our offices page.

Wisbech: 01945 461456

March: 01354 602880

King’s Lynn: 01553 666600

Ely: 01353 383483

Downham Market: 01366 383171

This article aims to supply general information, but it is not intended to constitute advice. Every effort is made to ensure that the law referred to is correct at the date of publication and to avoid any statement which may mislead. However, no duty of care is assumed to any person and no liability is accepted for any omission or inaccuracy. Always seek advice specific to your own circumstances. Fraser Dawbarns LLP is always happy to provide such advice.