Those of us who have ever had the urge to seize a mobile phone from an antisocial user and hurl it into the middle distance may have drawn pleasure from the newspaper headline “Firefighter sacked for throwing YouTuber’s phone awarded £4,000”, which reflected the unfair dismissal finding in Linden v Norfolk Fire. Why would that reaction have been a touch misguided?
Mr Linden, a firefighter with 32 years’ service, did indeed seize and hurl the phone of self proclaimed “social media auditor” Jimmy Evans, after warning him to back off to a safer place away from a safety cordon and a smoke plume. Mr Evans defied him in an aggressive manner, and subsequently posted his edited footage of the incident online.
There followed a two month investigation of a somewhat incomplete nature. Disciplinary action was recommended. At the disciplinary hearing, the decision to dismiss was evidently swayed by negative impact on reputation and erosion of public trust, alongside perceived dishonesty on Mr Linden’s part.
The tribunal decided that “taking a member of the public’s phone without his consent and throwing it into undergrowth” was gross misconduct. Evidently Mr Evans’ behaviour and the emergency action that Mr Linden was trying to undertake at the time did not dilute the charge.
Having then found itself torn upon whether Norfolk Fire honestly believed in elements of the misconduct charge and had reasonable grounds for the belief, the tribunal was similarly torn as to whether the investigation was sufficient. In turn, the tribunal concluded that the procedural failures took the dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses: were it not for those failures, it would have decided the dismissal to be fair.
Against that background, here is the explanation for the newspaper headline having not told the full story. Mr Linden’s basic award would have been just under £16,000. It was reduced by 75%. The tribunal had to determine whether Mr Linden’s conduct was culpable or blameworthy, and thereby contributory to his dismissal, and if so to what extent his basic award should be reduced on just and equitable grounds.
On the one hand, the tribunal considered Mr Linden’s seniority and his role model status, and his dishonesty. On the other hand, it considered Mr Evans’ aggressive and provocative behaviour, and the effect of Mr Linden’s historical PTSD on his ability to cope with such behaviour. Evidently this was not sufficient for the tribunal to decide that an emergency service operative had merely had a momentary lapse of reason, in the face of disrespectful behaviour from a self proclaimed social media auditor, such that only a token reduction would have been proper. Indeed, with a compensatory award left for future assessment, it put down a marker to the effect that a fair procedure would have led to an 80% chance of a fair dismissal.
Norfolk Fire might still have benefitted from a second opinion on its procedures before it reached the decision to dismiss. Are you in a similar situation? Get in touch. Contact David Cooper on 07450 350715 or via david@wolverhamptonemploymentlaw.co.uk .
Share this post: