Morrisons supermarket has been fined £3.5 million following prosecution by Tewkesbury Borough Council for failing to ensure the health and safety of an epileptic employee who died after falling from a shop stairway.
Matthew Gunn, 27, was using the stairs in the supermarket’s Tewkesbury store when he is believed to have had a seizure on 25 September 2014. The resultant fall caused severe head injuries and he sadly died in hospital on 7 October 2014.
Credit: Alamy Stock
Morrisons, which was aware of Mr Gunn’s epileptic condition – was deemed to have missed opportunities to ensure his safety. It was charged with three health and safety violations which it denied:
Morrisons admitted a fourth charge of failing to supply the council with requested information relating to the death of the employee.
However, on 2 February 2023, following a three-week trial at Cirencester Courthouse, the jury found Morrisons guilty on all four charges.
Sentencing took place on 17 March – the judge placed the offences in the highest category of culpability and harm, and Morrisons was fined £3.5 million.
Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Head of Community Services, Peter Tonge, said: “This was a long and difficult investigation, and the successful court outcome is a reflection of the dedication and professionalism of our investigation team.
“Matthew Gunn was extremely vulnerable to health and safety risks in his workplace due to his severe epilepsy.
“Despite being aware of the risks, Morrisons failed to put in place a number of simple measures which could have kept Matthew safe at work. Furthermore, Morrisons failed to co-operate with elements of our investigation, and we are satisfied that the substantial fine imposed by the court reflects the seriousness of the omissions and failures on the part of the company.
“We hope this court outcome will send a message to all employers of the importance of complying with basic health and safety duties, and properly assessing risks, especially when it comes to vulnerable employees.
“Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Matthew’s family for their enormous patience and support throughout this investigation and we hope that the sentence imposed on Morrisons today will finally provide them with the justice they deserve after all these years.”
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
OK – so what controls measure could Morrisons have put into place?
Well they could have started with a suitable risk assessment – https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/living/work
Perhaps the HSE consider it reasonable to ignore the Equality Act and not employ persons who suffer from seizures on upper levels. I cannot suggest any other SFAIRP control.
That’s the sad reality
So now no employee will employ anyone that is epileptic. Way to go HSE. You’ve just put back equality in employment 100 years.
I looked at this reference, thank you for link. However, it is not that helpful, being just a rehash of the HSE generic example. There is no legal H&S requirement to “risk assess” an individual – but there IS a requirement to make ‘reasonable adjustments’, broadly similar, which focusses on SOLUTIONS. Each individuals involvement is of course critical, as health conditions, circumstances, abilities etc. do vary, and can change over time. I really struggle with this case report – there must be much more context for such a large fine, but I am quite shocked and will now be more… Read more »
Thanks for your comment. We’re trying to get more detail into this with the HSE, and will attempt to speak to the Inspector involved. We have also consulted our legal contacts to gain more perspective from that point of view.
This is great as I would be really interested to understand the details of the case – how will you publish any further detail if available?
Sorry, not HSE – as they didn’t prosecute. We’re in contact with the council that brought forward the case.
There has to be more to this than the information given. Having a seizure on a staircase and falling could be seen as unfortunate, he could have easily had one on a flat surface and would have still fallen on the floor and seriously injured himself? Is this saying he should have not been tasked with any work that takes him up stairs? H&S professionals need to be given more information from these case studies or how are we ever going to learn from them to help prevent? Half stories do not help. Morrisons denied 3 of the 4 charges,… Read more »
Thank Rob – we’re in contact with the council to try and garner more info and we will put forward your comments.
Hi Mark, has there been any update or news on this? I was at a customers premises this morning and posed the question how many persons do you have with disabilities and the answer I received was in the lines of “none at present but after what happened to Morrisons recently, doubt we will have either!!”
Bad legal advice
Bad legal advice from whom to who? I think the point is Morrisons have been found guilty, but what of and for what reason. Failure to have a suitable and sufficient Risk Assessment doesn’t mean they didn’t have one, it could easily mean there were gaps in it, what I am sure there would be in every case like this. My reading on this is, a chap with epilepsy has a seizure whilst going up the stairs and gets injured. With the lack of information we can only surmise that Morrisons have been very naughty people, or they have been… Read more »
I have an example of where a former employer, employed a graduate with epilepsy to work in a laboratory. The individual was referred to OH and their GPs guidance was that they were no more at risk at work than they were at home! OH said similarly and wouldn’t offer anything constructive other than it was up to us to do our own assessment. This was done and result was that individual was not allowed to work in the lab and given a desk job in the office. However there were stairs to the office and hence that employer could… Read more »
he was going upstairs to the staff area, his locker and the staff canteen were up the stairs, (doesn’t say if there was a lift) the lawyers said he should have had his locker moved downstairs and been allowed to use the public canteen instead. ?Equalities?
He would then have a claim for discrimination as other employees use the staff canteen, it is not reasonable for every hazard to be assessed against the possibility of a seizure. If the injuries were less serious would this have ended in a prosecution?.