Claimant v London Fire Brigade
Outcome
Individual claims
At a preliminary hearing on 23rd October 2024, EJ Wright found that the claimant had not submitted sufficient evidence to show he was disabled at the relevant time under s.6 Equality Act 2010. The claim for disability discrimination was therefore dismissed and struck out.
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because: (1) the investigation was unreasonable due to the supervisor's likely bias and unreliable evidence regarding CCTV; (2) the procedure was unfair — the claimant was not informed in time that CCTV would be destroyed, depriving him of the opportunity to preserve it; (3) dismissal was not a proportionate sanction given the claimant expressed remorse and there were no proper grounds for concluding he posed a risk to others.
Under clause 13 of the claimant's contract, only statutory holiday entitlement (7.5 days) was payable on termination; additional contractual days were forfeited. The claimant was paid the 7.5 days he was entitled to. There was no evidence of any agreement outside the contract to pay the additional 8.5 days, and no approval under the respondent's PN367 procedure.
The wages claim consisted entirely of the holiday pay claim. The tribunal found the claimant was only entitled to 7.5 days statutory holiday pay on termination, which had been paid. Therefore no unlawful deduction occurred.
Facts
The claimant, a hydrant technician employed by the London Fire Commissioner since August 2019, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct following an altercation with a member of the public at a Tesco store on 10 October 2022. The complainant alleged the claimant shoved her to the ground during a dispute over queue-jumping. The respondent investigated, relying heavily on the store manager's account of CCTV footage (which was later destroyed) and witness statements. The claimant denied assaulting the complainant, stating he raised his arm defensively when she leaned into him. He was dismissed on 18 April 2023 and the dismissal was upheld on appeal.
Decision
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Although the respondent had reasonable grounds for belief at the time of dismissal, the investigation was tainted by the supervisor's likely bias (evidenced by a highly negative character reference inconsistent with the claimant's clean record), incomplete CCTV evidence, and procedural unfairness in failing to preserve CCTV or inform the claimant it would be destroyed. Dismissal was not a proportionate sanction. The holiday pay and wages claims failed because the claimant was only entitled to statutory holiday pay on termination, which had been paid.
Practical note
A dismissal may be unfair even if the decision-maker had reasonable grounds for belief at the time, where the investigation is subsequently shown to have been tainted by bias and procedural irregularities that deprived the employee of a fair opportunity to respond, particularly regarding key evidence like CCTV.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2304148/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- hydrant technician
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No