Mr Alan Simmons v Hampshire Fire And Rescue Service — 2021

Mr Simmons had been employed by Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service since 1992 and held both wholetime and retained duties. He had sought a move to a 50% retained contract since 2012, made an informal request again in 2016, and underwent a successful trial of reduced hours in 2017. After moving to Northern Ireland in December 2016 and taking a sabbatical from March 2018, he returned in March 2019 and renewed his request. The tribunal found that the respondent's approach to the request was driven by the needs of the station and later by a newly emphasised day-cover requirement, but that his personal circumstances and the Family Friendly Policy were not properly considered.

The tribunal held that there was a cumulative breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the respondent had effectively settled on dismissal before the end of the sabbatical, imposed a training attendance requirement that went beyond the contract, the service order and local practice, and introduced a weekday daytime cover requirement at a late stage that had not been applied consistently to others. It also found that the loss of the claimant's existing retained cover and his long service were not properly weighed. Mr Simmons resigned on 16 September 2019 in response to those breaches, and the tribunal held that there was no affirmation of the contract. The constructive dismissal claim therefore succeeded and was not fair within s.98(4) ERA 1996.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal accepted that in December 2017 Mr Simmons made a qualifying disclosure to CM Francis when he raised concerns that some personnel were living outside the four-minute response zone and might have to drive dangerously to reach the station in time. The tribunal found that this satisfied s.43B ERA 1996 and was made to the respondent. However, it concluded that the principal reason for the dismissal was not the disclosure, but the claimant's move to Northern Ireland and a background of antipathy and difficulty in relations with local management.

For the same reason, the tribunal dismissed the detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996. It held that the disclosure was not the ground for the respondent's treatment of Mr Simmons and that it played at most a trivial part in the overall decision-making. Remedy was not determined in this liability judgment; the matter was listed for a separate remedy hearing.