The appeal against the Employment Appeals Tribunal decision to support the sacking of bus driver Ashley Reed by Go South Coast.

 Readers will be aware that on 27 March 2026,  all three panel judges decided that Ashley Reed had not been unfairly dismissed. 

In fact, the panel dismissed everything that was put before them. It was equivalent to a 10-0 thrashing.

For the attention of the Employment Appeals Tribunal: Appeal Against Judgment sent on 28^th April 2026 from Employment Judge May and members Mr L Wakeman and Mr P English, Southampton Magistrates Court held between 23^rd-27^th March 2026.

Company Withhold Statements and CCTV Coverage

When I listened to Judge May’s summing up on the 27^th March after a five day hearing I was left stunned at the brutal response that was so one sided in what had proved a complex case, after my dedicated endeavour to hold Go South Coast to account – for inflicting what was an unjustifiable dismissal with absolutely no evidence to support it – that I felt the entire process had been what can only be described as a “whitewash”: there is no doubt that such a biased judgement in favour of the company after a Data Access Request was submitted in September 2024, when the company still refused to provide the statements that were used to dismiss me, was unjustifiable and unfair; and notwithstanding that, the involvement of the Independent Commissioners Office after Go South Coast had behaved unlawfully provided the only support to pursue the case at that stage; and lastly, following the first Preliminary Hearing, the ruling by Judge Midgley on the 9^th May 2025, that finally instructed the company to produce the statements, it was emphatically clear and obvious that the management at Go South Coast were behaving with impunity and accountable to no one.

Why wasn’t this struggle to pursue rectifying an injustice acknowledged after all the evidence I have provided for the Tribunal? It also has to be stated that when the statements were finally produced by the Respondent’s solicitor on 1^st September, all three statements from Mark Gale, Donna Jones, and Jason Gosling were not signed, and neither did they appear as witnesses. I’m only drawing attention to this because Judge May discounted a statement from Jonathan Pilley dated 5^th September that had been submitted as part of the bundle. Evidently, it appears there are separate rules and regulations for the Respondent because the supporting statement that had been in the bundle since September 2025 – who was also my representative through the 2^nd Investigation and the Disciplinary Hearing – was discarded from the final proceedings because although he had signed it by name and dated it, that did not constitute an electronic signature. Furthermore, another set of unsigned statements from the Respondent were submitted in December 2025, prior to the respondent solicitor missing a deadline. As I’ve stated, none of the three individuals concerned whose statements that resulted in my sacking appeared at the Tribunal. It is no exaggeration to say that Judge May’s decision can only be described as perverse in how totally one sided and prejudicial it appeared set against the fact that Go South Coast have pursued the worst possible sanction to expediently dismiss me, for in essence, a conversation that was reported as a Grievance; and then set out to justify that I wasn’t treated “less favourably” than anyone else? It beggars belief. Still, to this day, there is no evidence to justify my dismissal.

Conversation Results In Sacking

Throughout the entire five day hearing it was never once acknowledged that during two extensive Investigation meetings, a Disciplinary and Appeal Hearing, the Management team at Go South Coast (More Bus) had withheld the CCTV footage of a conversation that resulted in allegations made against me, despite our requesting at the second investigation meeting, if it was going to be made available, to do so in the interests of parity: the management had withdrawn the CCTV for a reason, because as was acknowledged through the investigation, it failed to show anything out of the ordinary concerning two people engaged in a conversation.

Misuse of the word ‘volatile’ by Judge May

In Judge May’s final judgement, to justify the original decision of dismissal she concludes on page 18 that, “Mr Reed effectively admits some of the conduct on which that finding was based. That includes his own description of himself as volatile during his interaction with Mr Gale, his reference to feeling disappointed in himself and to having to calm down following that interaction. These all indicate that he became agitated and angry and confrontational towards Mr Gale. The Panel concluded it was understandable that someone might feel intimidated in those circumstances and we note that feelings of intimidation do not have to be intentionally caused to have an impact and to be a breach of the Respondent’s stated policy.” This not only misrepresents what I have experienced and reported, it also fails to understand the true meaning of the word ‘volatile’. I have implied that this is when the conversation ‘was at its most volatile’ – this includes Mr Gale – and the CCTV that was seen by the management that could have clarified that (why else did they withhold it?) adding further credence to ensure the CCTV was not shown to my representatives, Martin Conder, or Jonathan Pilley, during both investigations and throughout the disciplinary process in an attempt to discredit my defence against false allegations. My having to calm down was not out of anger but shock: Mr Gale had initiated this conversation and stepped onto my bus, not the other way around. I felt anxious, and was rightly wary of Mr Gale and I felt that his behaviour in conversation was intimidating, and this was never acknowledged from the very beginning of the grievance process by the management.

Injustice compounded by Judge May

Judge May has compounded the injustice. There is certainly a legal argument to pursue that points to the company deliberately withholding the CCTV footage and also, simultaneously, withholding the statements that were utilised to manufacture a dismissal, and in that context, the decision to dismiss is legally unfair; at that stage of the proceedings there was only one grievance submitted against me in the form of Mr Gale’s statement. I honestly recalled during the investigation that the conversation at a certain point had been “at its most volatile” and that presents an entirely different context to the one Judge May has disproportionately concluded in which I have been damned and made to look the aggressor. Judge May has grossly misrepresented the interaction with Mr Gale as I, too, had every right to feel intimidated by him, which is what I am also referring to when I had decided it was best to walk away from the bus.

Vital Evidence Deliberately Withheld

Although the Tribunal appeared to dismiss the relevance of the company failing to produce the CCTV footage (in legal terms) despite the fact it could have provided vital evidence in support of my case through the Grievance process, their equally evasive measures failing to submit the statements that also contained false allegations that had been made against me, ultimately resulted in unfairly manipulating the opportunity of resolving the grievance, and as it progressed to a disciplinary the withholding of evidence had genuinely serious implications. In all reality the allegations resulted in an appalling misuse of management time to advance in essence what was an internal Union dispute that fell entirely outside the scope of the company’s disciplinary processes.

Judge May even provides acknowledgement to how meticulous and thorough Mr Shaw conducted the Disciplinary Hearing when statements, in the case of Mr Gosling, were entirely dropped, as if this was evidence of fairness and parity: it was certainly in the interests of protecting the management (legally speaking) but was not in the interests of a fair and just hearing; and as far as the management were concerned there were ulterior motives for this.

Management Breach Confidentiality

For example, why does Judge May fail to acknowledge what I have evidenced, when my confidentiality was breached by Andy Shaw and the company when Donna Jones sent in her grievance that is referencing emails I have sent to her through the RMT? Is this not a concern to the Tribunal? This is most certainly a legal matter because a number of the issues concerning Donna Jones and the emails that she referenced in the Disciplinary Hearing that both Alanah Hughes and Andy Shaw did not dismiss, sat outside the workplace: not only that, as I had evidenced in my statement for the Tribunal, those emails were well articulated, polite in tone, and far from intimidating.

No Evidence

There is no reference from Judge May at all, that provides any balance to support how disproportionate Andy Shaw’s decision to dismiss with no evidence, constituted, in terms of being driven out of a job. In fact, compounded by the omission, and deliberate withholding of the CCTV, which should have enabled the only real evidence the management had denied my representatives to support my case – and at least to access the viewing of the CCTV as they should have done – only to make matters worse, by the management also withholding all three statements throughout the entire process, unequivocally contributed to my unfair dismissal. There are many other questions raised in Judge May’s summing up that are not in context and are framed against me that follow the exact same narrative as the management, despite the evidence I have presented consistently over my efforts to clear my name as set out in my 6,000 word statement for the Tribunal.

No date, No Independent Witnesses

Ultimately, I was sacked by Andy Shaw after Donna Jones had stated in her grievance that in a conversation which also involved other people I had ‘leaned’ towards her, yet she couldn’t remember when this incident was and there were no independent witnesses to corroborate what she had reported. It was farcical in the tribunal listening to the company’s witnesses with conflicting stories of when this so-called incident had taken place, and this was the basis for Andy Shaw’s decision to dismiss, and the Judgment from Judge May praises him?

Complete lack of parity from Go South Coast and Tribunal

There are examples that could have been provided to the Tribunal demonstrating Go South Coast’s lack of parity if it came to evidencing whether I have been treated less favourably than an employee without my protected characteristic in Trade union beliefs, principles and philosophy, and varying outcomes on the scale that have not resulted in dismissal. Considering that there was no evidence against me, in terms of other cases at Go South Coast in the past two years, employees have received written and final written warnings for a range of misdemeanours, and in one case that could be referenced, an employee that was given a final written warning for intimidation and violent conduct when he was expected to be dismissed: from the start of being suspended to the Disciplinary Hearing, he was back to work in weeks. Yet the decision to dismiss me by the management for a conversation was axiomatic without the consideration of a lesser sanction, especially in concern to my employment record that had been acknowledged (by Mr Shaw himself) as “exemplary”.

Witness under cross examination lies under oath

On day 2, when I cross examined Alanah Hughes, she was clearly emotionally distressed when being questioned about the CCTV footage and at one stage she was visibly upset (which is why I asked for an adjournment), clearly struggling to recall whether she herself had seen the CCTV footage concerned after making contradictory statements: after stating that she had not seen the CCTV footage whilst on oath, I refocused her attention to statements that suggested otherwise without actually stating that she had blatantly lied. If the CCTV footage had been seen by all the managers concerned, and it had self-evidently failed to provide them with the evidence they were looking to substantiate from the statement provided by Mark Gale – whilst utilising the CCTV as a reference point to justify a dismissal once they had passed the grievance process on the escalation ladder towards a disciplinary – then why wasn’t I provided the footage to view to support my case? Furthermore, why did the process move from a grievance to a disciplinary without any substantive evidence? Surely, in the interests of a fair and just hearing, this is what the Employment Tribunal should have been seeking to establish?

Tribunal Exonerates Company and blames Trade Union representative – still no sight of CCTV

For Judge May to blame Martin Conder, my representative in the Appeal Hearing, for not asking directly to see the CCTV footage, after he had asked if Andy Shaw had seen it (the manager who had conducted the disciplinary hearing), entirely misses the point as to why the question was asked in the first place: my representative had asked if the management had seen it because we hadn’t been given that opportunity, after they had failed throughout the entire process to make the footage available to all parties. It is totally unreasonable to blame my representative when I had been denied the opportunity of viewing it, especially if it could have supported my case through two previous investigations for a grievance process that had unjustifiably been used to instigate a disciplinary hearing, when we had been told by the management throughout the process that it was unavailable.

With so much reference being made to the CCTV footage throughout the five day hearing it was clear and obvious to me as to why it had been withheld along with the three statements that were used to dismiss me, because it had shown nothing to substantiate Mark Gale’s allegations: it could be argued therefore, that Go South Coast by withholding the CCTV constitutes a breach of employment law and of the ACAS code of practice, and Judge May could have taken a far more balanced view concerning why the company had withheld the footage instead of seeking to blame my representative at the Appeal Hearing stage.

The company had not only withheld the CCTV footage throughout the entire process as I had  evidenced in my final statement submitted to the Tribunal, they also failed to provide three statements that had been utilised by the management to dismiss me: not one single statement had been provided and after submitting a Data Access Request in September 2024 I was only provided the dates of when the three statements were submitted after months of exchanging correspondence and phone calls with the Independent Commissioners Office.

Judge Midgley Orders Respondent to produce statements used to sack me in Preliminary Hearing, 09^th May 2025

Finally, when Judge Midgley ordered them to be made available when we had the first Preliminary Hearing on the 9^th May 2025, I received three statements on September 1^st and the Respondent’s solicitors submitted further statements through ongoing disclosure in December 2025, prior to their missing a deadline that had also somehow escaped a previous Data Access Request.

Not at any stage of the process were these statements made available for me to read before being summarily dismissed.

Whilst withholding material witness statements is not necessarily an automatic breach of the law itself, it should certainly have been acknowledged that this blatant manipulation of company policies and procedures to justify a disciplinary hearing, compounded by other factors I have evidenced, was legally unfair especially considering when it had resulted in my dismissal.

Final insult – trade union beliefs dismissed

I am also at a loss as to how Judge May and the panel reached the conclusion that they did by denying my Trade Union Beliefs, Principles, and Philosophy full acknowledgement as a “protected belief” under section 10 of the Equality Act after it was decided on the eve of submissions to alter the Issues.

I had little time to prepare such an important part of my case and I had already exchanged extensive correspondence with Stephanie Walkerdine, the respondent’s solicitor, after the first Preliminary Hearing when I submitted my statement that fulfilled all the criteria in accordance with section 10.

Given time at the Tribunal I could have evidenced more thoroughly my belief in Trade Union activism when I have performed at events as a musician over decades – including for the NUM in the 1990s and more recently the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign – and my long family history going back to the 1926 Miners Lock Out, exactly one hundred years ago. Nevertheless, I certainly presented a strong case to fulfil all the criteria set out in the Issues. If veganism, or if global warming can be considered as protected beliefs, then my belief in trade unionism should be no less respected in a democratic society.

Effectively, in her summing up, Judge May has discriminated against me in legal terms because whether I’m an individual member of a trade union, an activist, a Regional Organiser or the General Secretary, it shouldn’t make any difference at all as to my beliefs in trade unionism as a force for good, because my belief should be no less respected in universal terms whether I am a member or a senior Official.

Internal RMT dispute used to have me sacked.

It was emphatically evidenced for the Tribunal how my trade union activism and what had been highlighted and then addressed within the workplace from January to June 2024, and as a result of the petition (containing over 200 signatures) that was presented to Mick Lynch, the General Secretary of RMT, had brought about for our members in the workplace and the subsequent pay ballot that was conducted electronically.

The Tribunal could have sought to establish how my trade union activism had contributed to such a disproportionate decision to dismiss me, but this was not the case; and through implication, Judge May made a number of references to the cost of the entire process as if this was somehow my fault? I had undertaken two Preliminary Hearings and not once had my Trade Union Beliefs, Principles, and Philosophy been denied or questioned, and whilst this isn’t necessarily the role of the Tribunal to determine, I had nevertheless produced what was needed for Judge Midgley. He had asked me to submit a document for the Tribunal and it underlined in clear terms my universal belief in trade unionism.

The Issues – Critical last alterations on the eve of submissions

If this declaration wasn’t going to be recognised by the Tribunal under Section 10 as a protected characteristic and turned on its head on the eve of submissions, then why did we go to a final hearing? I certainly cannot be blamed for that and why was I asked at the last possible moment on the eve of submissions? It was unreasonable of the Tribunal to do this and it placed me at a disadvantage, but nevertheless, my statement more than addressed the Issues, but not to the satisfaction of Judge May. Incongruously, I was left justifying my trade union activism after all the evidence I had submitted to the Tribunal on what is now approaching a two-year process.

Disparity: vital statement for the Claimant discarded – yet unsigned witness statements from Respondents remain unquestionably acceptable.

Judge May had also stated that she would come back to me regarding a statement that had been submitted by email in letter form at the start of the Hearing on the 23^rd March, that was a critically important document written by Jonathan Pilley. I was informed in Judge May’s summing up that because it wasn’t signed electronically (it had not been signed by hand only the name was printed) the statement was discarded. It would have been possible to have addressed that oversight if it was necessary but Judge May did not seek to address this as she had said she would on Monday 23^rd March, if there was a problem with it. Why didn’t she get back to me as she said she would? Although the representative concerned could not attend the hearing due to a bereavement, he would have been perfectly willing to sign it to the Tribunal’s satisfaction and this could have been easily rectified.

Judge May once again misrepresents me by stating I had insisted it be included? It had always been included and I didn’t have to insist. The respondent’s solicitors had rejected just about every document I had submitted since compiling the bundle in September 2025. It had been written and electronically signed ‘Jonathan Pilley’ and dated 5^th September. I could have verified for Judge May if she was not going to include this document that Jonathan had just suffered a family bereavement, but he was nevertheless available to send through a simple amendment if that was necessary.

Monies Owed

On Monday 23^rd March on day 1 of the Tribunal I also raised a discrepancy that was not included in the Issues but I had nevertheless raised my concern as per procedure, concerning monies that have not been paid to me when highlighting to Judge May where there was a clear contradiction between two managers: Andy Shaw had assured me that when he dismissed me on 10^th July 2024 that due to my “exemplary employment record” he would grant a week’s wages in my final pay packet, whilst Richard Tyldsley who took the appeal stated that this was not the case. It’s all there in writing as I was going to draw Judge May’s attention to it. Although I raised this issue at the very start of proceedings nothing has been addressed. Neither was the fact that I didn’t receive any suspension pay from Go South Coast as I had detailed in my Schedule of Loss document. Not one of these issues was even mentioned in Judge May’s summing up.

I also find it distressing that Judge May whilst citing that I presented well at the Tribunal Hearing feels that this provides suitable grounds for denying anonymity? Whether I presented well or not is not relevant. I had requested anonymity not just to enable myself to recover and to protect my own mental health from what has proven a gruellingly intense experience whilst recovering after such a damning process, but for others involved in the case, not least those who are still employed by Go South Coast.

I had to see this process through as a point of principle, no matter what the outcome, and I understand the principles of open democracy – but this Judgment was as far removed from a fair and just process seeking to address the wrongs of a case that one could imagine, so I needed time to recover and prepare for an appeal – and I respect that if there is going to be an internal enquiry within the trade union as I am seeking, then in the interests of transparency concerning three individuals who have not been present at the Tribunal but central to it, this could be conducted without necessarily causing a public spectacle if the wider press were involved.

It isn’t entirely accurate for Judge May to state that the Press (in general terms) were present when nothing concerning specific details of the case have been reported in their entirety. Mark Metcalf, the journalist concerned who was present at the Hearing, was there at my invitation and is also a trade unionist and historian; he would concur that if an internal inquiry within RMT was to address what the Tribunal couldn’t, then at this stage it would be better served for those three individuals and employees of Go South Coast, to do so willingly if called by RMT, without there being any unnecessary exploitation in the wider press involving higher profile individuals who are part of the process, if it goes into the public domain.

There are also legal questions that the Tribunal needs to consider in terms of an Appeal concerning what the company unlawfully concealed in the form of statements and CCTV before my dismissal and clear breaches of my confidentiality. The transport industry is a small world and too many people could be negatively impacted who still work at Go South Coast if it goes public at this stage, so this isn’t just about protecting my own mental health from a personal standpoint, if this process inexorably takes a course I can no longer manage.

Yours respectfully,