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.
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.
Mr Bennett took his case to an employment tribunal, which found in favour of him, 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.
He was represented by Thompsons Solicitors, which secured an out-of-court settlement of £80,000, more than the statutory cap for these types of cases.
Fire Brigades Union official, Steve Shelton, who had represented Mr Bennett during his disciplinary hearings, said: “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.”
A spokesperson for Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service said: “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.”
Fire Safety in 2023 eBook
SHP's sister site, IFSEC Insider has released its annual Fire Safety Report for 2023, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry.
Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
You’re about as sharp as a cushion Razor!! It appears the Service was in breach of the DDA by refusing to make a simple workplace change to accommodate someone with back problems. He obviously felt compelled to go down the route he did and he had the right to go against the advice of superiors given that there is a public interest in firefighters being fit to serve the public! By not making this adjustment the Service were putting public safety at risk!
Am I missing the point here but fire fighter with bad back??? how does that work, another example of unions fighting cases that logic dictakes should never be heard, ban all unions I say pathetic load of money grabbers who have no purpose in 21st century, rant over!!!
What an amazing comment by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service.
Provided the article fairly reflects the case this is incredible.
An employee simply raising an issue that, as I understand the law, it is not only his right but his responsibility to raise.
With employers like that it’s no wonder we need H&S legislation.
Yes Gary, your missing the point. He got the bad back from the chair, hence he ‘couldn’t work, hence the Union was representing him because the management refused to see any issues with the chairs. good to see you understand why in the 21st centry unions are still a necassary evil. keep up your rant but save it for Lord Young another person peddling missconceptions and hearsay.
Well done union. Striking a blow for freedom of speech.
BOO to the GMFRS – dismissal for this reason is unacceptable bully boy tactics.
Waste of money? Depends how you look at it. GMFRS may view it as money well spent.
Ban all unions? like em or not – they have helped raise the standards for the working man – both living standards & safe working standards. Without em most workers wouldn’t have the quality of life we have today.
Nice to see that Greater Manchester Fire Service got their priorities right. More concenred that an employee had breached one of their petty little e mail rules but no comment made about the fact that they were providing unsafe and unhealthy sleeping facilities for the staff.
Having been a TU h&s and industrial relations rep I suspect the ‘truth’ of this case lies somewhere between the two polarised views. It sounds like to me the brigade were glad to see the back of him (apologies for the pun) as I suspect they viewed him as a trouble maker. That said, it is a disgraceful waste of public money in order to resolve the issue.
Having been a manager in the fire service I am well aware that it is very difficult to dismiss troublemakers. Reading between the lines this person was not dismissed solely because of the email he sent. I would be willing to bet that he had a history of being a troublemaker and that he really got his just desserts. I know of far more serious incidents where the perpetrators otherwise had a good record… they were not dismissed.
£80,000 for tax payers to cover + the whopping costs. It’s right that the chap raised questions but he was specifically advised by senior personnel not to send a group-wide email. It clearly broke company policy. I am surprised the courts ruled in his favour.
The employee should not lose his job simply becuase he has a pre existing condition which his employer was aggravating by making the changes to the sleeping arrangements. Having a pre existing condition did not prevent him from carrying out his duties before the change and if his employers were aware of his condition then they clearly discriminated against him under the DDA by failing to take his requests seriously. Having been a claims investigator this is a very familiar tale.