HR Magazine – Violent ‘hero’ bus driver loses tribunal

Metroline bus driver Mark Hehir was driving a bus when a thief stole a passenger’s necklace, an employment tribunal heard.

Hehir got off the bus, gave chase, retrieved the necklace, and returned to the bus to give the passenger her item back. The driver was reportedly followed by the thief, who Hehir later hit with such force that the man fell unconscious.

A day after the incident, a representative of Hehir’s employer called him into a disciplinary hearing, after which he was suspended. He was also told to attend an investigation for having brought the company into disrepute by assaulting a passenger and failing to protect passenger safety by leaving the bus.

Although a police officer said Hehir had used proportionate and necessary force – and Hehir said he acted instinctively, only to protect passengers – he was dismissed for gross misconduct, which a tribunal upheld. Hehir had told the tribunal that he was seen as a hero by the public. 

Read more: Poll finds workplace conflict on the rise: Key lessons for HR

Asked for best practice advice about what HR professionals should do when reviewing misconduct cases involving violence, Doug Betts, founder of HR consultancy Sure Betts HR, said that staying “calm and forensic” is key. Cases involving violence at work are rarely black-and-white, he told HR magazine, noting that emotions can run high in such cases.

“Investigate promptly, gather witness accounts, CCTV and other evidence, and separate intention from outcome,” Betts continued.

“Someone may have meant well and still breached policy. The investigator’s job isn’t to judge character, it’s to assess behaviour against standards an organisation has clearly set.”

He continued that a successful outcome starts long before any incident takes place. “Employers should have clear policies on violence, aggression and personal safety, spelling out expectations and limits.”

Speaking to HR magazine, Chris Garner, MD of business legal services provider Avensure, highlighted that employers should investigate any acts of violence before taking actions that could lead to dismissal.

Read more: How HR can respond to employee violence

He added: “There will be incidents where someone is legitimately forced to defend themselves when facing the imminent threat of violence. Employees should not be expected to simply tolerate it as part of their role.”

Garner warned: “This doesn’t mean that self-defence is justification for further violence.”

Betts added that staff in public-facing roles should be specially trained in de-escalation, in what to do in threatening situations, and when not to intervene. He explained: “If your policy says ‘do not pursue’, tribunals will expect you to enforce it consistently, even when the story sounds heroic over a cup of tea.”

Garner agreed, and added: “Clear procedures should also be in place for proper reporting and escalation.”

Betts reminded: “Tribunals tend to be deeply unromantic about heroics. Violence and self-defence can be legally defensible at work, but only in very narrow circumstances.”