Claimant v Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and did not provide the claimant with full details of all allegations. The investigation was closed-minded from the outset, and the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct fell outside the band of reasonable responses given mitigating factors including 38 years' service, a clean disciplinary record, and lack of clarity about which allegations were upheld.
The tribunal found that the substantiated conduct (use of the term 'terrorist' to describe the Mayor, repeating an offensive joke, and discussing Polish colleagues in reference to car washes) did not cumulatively amount to gross misconduct or a repudiatory breach of contract justifying summary dismissal, particularly given the context, the claimant's lack of prior complaints, and the broader cultural issues at the station.
The tribunal accepted the reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct and his alleged unwillingness to change, not his age. Although there were references to retirement and a '21st century lifeboatman' conversation, the tribunal found the claimant conflated his humour and stubbornness with his age, not the respondent. A hypothetical comparator under 60 in the same circumstances would have been treated the same way.
Facts
The claimant, aged 61 at dismissal, was a Thames Commander for the RNLI with 38 years' combined service (23 years employed). He was suspended in February 2024 following anonymous whistleblowing complaints about allegedly racist, sexist, and inappropriate comments at work. After a disciplinary investigation and hearing, he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 26 April 2024. The allegations included calling the Mayor of London a 'terrorist', repeating an offensive joke, and making comments about Polish colleagues and women. The claimant had a clean disciplinary record and had been told to 'tone it down' by his manager in 2023 following a cultural reset at the charity.
Decision
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims but dismissed the age discrimination claim. The investigation was fundamentally flawed: the claimant was never told the full allegations against him, witnesses were asked leading questions, and key evidence was not tested. The dismissing officer could not clearly identify which allegations were upheld. The conduct substantiated did not amount to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal given the context and mitigating factors. The dismissal was not because of the claimant's age but due to his conduct and alleged unwillingness to change.
Practical note
Employers must provide full particularity of disciplinary allegations from the outset, conduct neutral and thorough investigations, and clearly articulate which allegations are upheld and why before deciding to dismiss — procedural failures rendering a belief in misconduct unreasonable will make a dismissal unfair even where some misconduct occurred.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010603/2024
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Thames Commander
- Service
- 22 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister