Having sat as a lay member on Tribunals I can see PM having difficulty in dodging this one.
Tribunals are not the place to raise issues over the merits of company policy, but only if that policy was binding and followed.
Standard Operating Procedures are required to be followed, this was not followed nor was it a situation [such as an emergency] where it was obvious to a clueless bystander that this deviation was indeed necessary.
The case will be focused on if the statutory grievance procedures were followed.
Was PM given prior notice before being called into a meeting.
Did he receive written communication following this.
Was he offered an appeal to be heard by a more senior member of management?
Was Pablo allowed a witness at both these meetings?
Unfortunately whether the passenger was a threat or not is extremely unlikely to be considered by the panel.
Breach of the essential terms of contract
Dismissed- correct procedure?