Case 1305855/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Moss v Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305855/2020
- Decision date
- 3 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mrs S Bannister, Mr S Woodall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Moss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard complaints under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010 brought by Mr Moss, a long-serving firefighter, arising from a reduction of his pay to half occupational sick pay, the commencement of a capability process, and his dismissal on 19 January 2021. The Tribunal found that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was capability, a potentially fair reason, and not the Claimant's trade union activities. The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were all dismissed.
The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was well-founded. The Tribunal concluded that the combination of the dismissing officer (Mr Watts) not being properly updated on the Claimant's medical position, several grounds on which the Respondent could reasonably have waited longer, and the Respondent's failure properly to address alternatives to dismissal took the decision outside the range of reasonable responses. The Tribunal weighed in the balance that the Claimant had 28 years' service and had not been given any formal warning. It also found the appeal, while conducted fairly in form, did not cure the underlying issues because the appeal officer did not have the most recent occupational health reports and did not properly consider whether the Respondent could reasonably have waited longer.
The Tribunal also dismissed a strike-out application brought by the Claimant in respect of a letter sent by the Respondent's solicitors to a witness reminding him of obligations under a settlement agreement, concluding the letter could have been better worded but did not amount to scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct. Remedy for unfair dismissal was deferred to a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability (a potentially fair reason) but that the dismissal was unfair because the Respondent did not properly update the dismissing officer on the Claimant's medical position, could reasonably have waited longer, and failed properly to consider alternatives to dismissal. Remedy deferred to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint based on trade union activities: the Tribunal found the reason or principal reason for dismissal was not that the Claimant had taken part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint of discrimination arising from disability dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 19 Equality Act 2010 complaint of indirect disability discrimination dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010) dismissed. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 (reasonable adjustments)
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.