Mr. G. D. Monroe v Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) — 2025

The tribunal at London Central found the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims well founded and dismissed the age discrimination claim. It held that Mr. Monroe was summarily dismissed by the RNLI on 26 April 2024, with the dismissal letter following on 7 May 2024, and that the respondent said the reason was gross misconduct. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct, together with a belief that the claimant was unwilling to change, but it held that the respondent had not handled the matter fairly or reached its decision on reasonable grounds.

A central finding was that the claimant was not told the full case against him. The suspension letter identified only some allegations, while the investigation terms of reference contained additional matters that were never properly put to him. The tribunal also found that the investigation was not reasonable because the investigator did not interview some obvious witnesses such as Ms Allen or Mr Tyrlski, the investigation report did not analyse each allegation separately, and the disciplinary chair accepted the report without going behind it. It further found that the questioning at interview and hearing was not neutral, that the claimant’s chosen companion was refused, and that the substitute companion was given an inaccurate explanation of the role.

The tribunal accepted some inappropriate conduct by the claimant, including repeated use of the word 'terrorist' about the Mayor of London, repetition of the 'Pakistan joke', and references to Polish colleagues in connection with car washes. It did not, however, find several other allegations made out, including the allegation that he used the 'N word', the 'nice butt' allegation, the 'bullshit' allegation about the women in SAR conversation, and the derogatory CCTV comments. It held that, even taking the respondent’s case at its highest, the conduct did not amount to gross misconduct or a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal, and that a final written warning and training had been the more realistic sanction considered before the hearing.

On age discrimination, the tribunal accepted there were references during the process to the claimant’s age and impending retirement, and that the phrase '21st century lifeboatman' was used, but it found those matters did not show that age was the reason for dismissal. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was driven by the conduct allegations and the mistaken belief that the claimant would not change, not by his age. A remedy hearing was listed for 15 December 2025, so no award was determined in this judgment.