Philip Staines v North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service — 2021

Philip Staines, a firefighter employed since 3 April 2006 and an on-call watch manager from 17 December 2018, was dismissed on 30 July 2020 after a disciplinary process that followed a final written warning issued in May 2019 for inappropriate behaviour and harassment. The later complaints concerned remarks made to Jonny Metcalfe on 15 July 2019 and to Suzanna Post on 30 July 2019. The tribunal recorded that the respondent investigated the allegations, suspended the claimant, held investigatory meetings, issued a disciplinary invite, and later heard an appeal before the North Yorkshire Police Fire and Crime Commissioner.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct within s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996 and that the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred on reasonable grounds. It accepted that the claimant used the term 'Arthur'/'half a man' about Mr Metcalfe, intended as a reference to height, but held that Mr Metcalfe reasonably interpreted it as a reference to his sexuality and was offended and upset. The tribunal also found that the claimant said 'you've got her well trained' when Ms Post answered the telephone, that the comment was inappropriate and belittling to a female colleague, and that it showed a lack of insight into the impact of his language.

The tribunal concluded that the investigation was reasonable overall and that the disciplinary process, taken as a whole including the appeal, was fair. It accepted that the respondent did not always make crystal clear that only the 'well trained' comment was being pursued for the 30 July incident, and it found the appeal was delayed unreasonably, but it held that these matters did not render the overall process unfair. Applying the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal decided dismissal was fair and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

On the breach of contract claim for notice pay, the tribunal held that the conduct found proved was not gross misconduct and therefore did not justify dismissal without notice. It said the claimant's conduct was serious enough to merit dismissal with notice, but not summary dismissal. The tribunal also found a breach of the ACAS Code because the appeal hearing was unreasonably delayed, and it ordered a 10% uplift to the notice-pay award. The judgment did not quantify the notice-pay sum, stating that remedy evidence had not yet been heard and that the parties might agree the amount or list the matter for a remedies hearing.