Sacked Fire-fighter Challenged Safety Risk

The principle that to speak out about issues which can be harmful to your health has been supported by a recent employment tribunal case involving a fire fighter who raised issues over reclining chair replacements for beds.

The case was reported by Health and Safety Practitioner Magazine this week in a website news item which gave details of the case:

“An employment tribunal has found in favour of a fire-fighter who was sacked for asking colleagues if their employer’s reclining chairs were hurting their backs.”

The report goes on to provide background information:

“In 2007, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service replaced the beds used by fire-fighters on night shifts with reclining chairs. Christopher Bennett, who suffered existing back problems, asked the fire authority to let him use his own mattress to rest.

However, his request that the fire authority should make such reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act was refused. Instead, he was told to use the rest facilities provided at the station, or rest on benches in the snooker room.

In February 2008, Christopher Bennett sent an e-mail to colleagues referring to the insistence of the fire service that he use the chairs provided, despite the fact that they were aggravating his back condition. He was dismissed for gross misconduct and lost an appeal.”

Subsequently, Mr Bennett took his case to an employment tribunal.

HSP reports that the tribunal found in his favour, “… ruling that his right to expression under the Human Rights Act was breached and that his dismissal was unfair. It found that the e-mail was of political and public interest in that fire-fighters should be alert and fit to go about their business of fighting fires and carrying out rescue operations.”

HSP quotes Fire Brigades Union official, Steve Shelton, who had represented Mr Bennett during his disciplinary hearings, as saying: “I always knew that Chris had been treated unfairly and that the mitigating circumstances involved in his case had been ignored.

To lose his job for speaking out about his concerns for safety was a sanction too far. It’s reassuring to know that the law recognises this and that our legal advisors were able to successfully argue that the Human Rights Act be applied to Chris’s case.”

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Services response was scathing. HSP reported their response as: “We are extremely disappointed in the outcome of this case. Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service demand the highest standards of behaviour from its entire staff. Mr Bennett’s actions fell far below those standards when he ignored the email policy and advice from both his line manager and his union representative.
 
"We also believe that by soliciting support against the Service, Mr Bennett irreparably broke an employer’s trust, hence our decision not to reinstate him.”

The fire fighter was represented by Thompsons Solicitors, which secured an out-of-court settlement of £80,000, far more than the statutory cap for these types of cases.

Source: SHP

Designed, Hosted and Maintained by Union Safety Services