Case 1404180/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Phelps v Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service — 2020
- Case reference
- 1404180/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Phelps
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Phelps was dismissed on 23 May 2019 at the end of an extended probationary period as a full-time firefighter with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service. The tribunal found that the case was one of capability or aptitude, not misconduct: the respondent was seeking to assess whether his behaviours and performance were at an acceptable standard, rather than punishing past wrongdoing. By the time the dismissal decision was made, he had reached two years' service, so he had the statutory right not to be unfairly dismissed.
Applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, the tribunal held that fairness required a final hearing before dismissal, with the opportunity to be accompanied, and a right of appeal. The respondent instead relied on its probationary process, which did not provide those steps. The tribunal also considered that the internal whistleblowing investigation was not an adequate substitute, because it did not squarely test Mr Phelps's complaints about double standards, trivial criticism, or the possibility that standards differed between stations.
The tribunal accepted that there had been a long accumulation of concerns over conduct, teamwork, attitude, and performance, and that Mr Legg-Bagg had tried to support Mr Phelps through review meetings and a performance improvement plan. It nevertheless found that the lack of a fair final hearing made the dismissal unfair. On remedy, it applied the Polkey principle and assessed that a fair process would still probably have led to dismissal, but only after a real 30% chance of a more lenient outcome. It made no deduction for contributory fault because this was not treated as a conduct dismissal.
The tribunal found a clear breach of the ACAS Code and applied a 15% uplift. Reinstatement or re-engagement was not ordered. The parties then agreed compensation at £6,765, which the tribunal awarded as the final sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that Mr Phelps was unfairly dismissed from his firefighter role at the end of his probationary period because the respondent did not adapt its process once he had acquired two years' service: he was not given a final hearing with accompaniment rights or a proper appeal. The dismissal was treated as a capability/aptitude case rather than misconduct. A Polkey reduction was assessed at 30%, and an ACAS Code uplift of 15% was applied before the parties agreed compensation at £6,765. | Upheld | — | £6,765 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,765
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £6,765
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)
- Polkey v Dayton Services Limited
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.