Case 4107050/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Ketterer v Represented by: Ms L Neill – Solicitor Scottish Fire and Rescue Service — 2022
- Case reference
- 4107050/2020
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Ketterer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Ketterer was employed by Scottish Fire and Rescue Service as a firefighter and was dismissed on 25 June 2020 after sending a WhatsApp message about a call-out on 14 February 2020. The message referred to a vulnerable member of the public in crude and derogatory terms and also linked the incident to the then-ongoing pay and conditions ballot. The tribunal found that the post was circulated beyond the original closed group and that the claimant admitted authoring it, although he said it was sent to vent frustration and to influence colleagues in relation to the ballot.
On the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.152 TULR(C)A 1992, the tribunal found that sending the post was protected trade union activity because it was aimed at influencing union members in relation to the pay and conditions ballot and was done at an appropriate time after the claimant's shift ended. However, the tribunal held that this was not the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The dismissal was found to be based on the content of the post and the respondent's view that it amounted to serious misconduct and created reputational risk.
On the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. Applying Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, it held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal also rejected arguments about inconsistency of treatment, finding that the comparator cases were not truly parallel.
The tribunal considered the claimant's Article 10 point and held that dismissal did not interfere with his freedom of expression because he remained free to complain and seek to influence colleagues, but not to refer to a member of the public in the terms used. It therefore dismissed the claim in full and recorded that no remedy issues arose.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found the claimant was participating in activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time when he sent the WhatsApp post, but held that this was not the sole or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct, that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in misconduct after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.152(1)(b) TULR(C)A 1992
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Royal Society for the Protection of Birds v Croucher
- British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Hadjioannou v Coral Casinos Ltd
- Hill v Great Tey Primary School Governors
- Luce v London Borough of Bexley
- Collier Industrial Waste Ltd v Logan
- Morris v Metrolink Ratpdev
- Bass Taverns Ltd v Burgess
- Lyon and another v St James Press Ltd
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.