Mr G Hoole v Finning (UK) Limited — 2023

Mr Hoole was employed by Finning (UK) Limited from 8 April 2019 until his summary dismissal on 2 August 2022. The tribunal found that on 29 June 2022 he and a colleague carried out an improvised complex lift while replacing a front axle on a CAT 990 wheel loader, after the correct chains were unavailable. The lift was undertaken without revisiting the pre-task assessment or completing a revised lifting plan, and Mr Hoole admitted that he did not have the Respondent’s overhead crane training or licence. The tribunal accepted that colleagues were concerned about the safety of the lift, that a near-miss report was made, and that the Respondent treated the conduct as a serious health and safety breach.

The tribunal held that the Respondent had a reasonable basis for its investigation and disciplinary process. It noted that the initial investigation took place on the day of the incident, that Mr Hoole was interviewed again on 13 July 2022, and that he was given a disciplinary hearing on 22 July 2022 after receiving a little over twenty-four hours’ notice. Although the appeal officer later upheld Mr Hoole’s complaint that the disciplinary hearing had not been postponed, the tribunal found that this made no material difference because he had already been able to set out his account during the earlier investigation meetings and at the disciplinary hearing, and the appeal process considered all thirty-seven grounds of appeal.

On substance, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was fair under section 98 ERA 1996. It found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, that the Respondent was entitled to treat Mr Hoole’s admissions as gross misconduct, and that the disciplinary procedure expressly treated serious breaches of health and safety rules and safe working practices as gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected the argument that the absence of any injury or the fact that other colleagues did not stop the lift mitigated the conduct, and it found that a lesser sanction was not appropriate. It therefore held that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the claim.