Meeting documents

To consider Item 11

The Director of Legal and Governance advised Members that this report was being presented to the Authority so that the findings of the Employment Tribunal in a case resulting from claims brought against the Authority by its former Area Commander could be brought to the attention of Members.  Mr Holland alleged that the actions and decisions of the Authority’s former Head of HR, and the Chief Fire Officer and the Deputy Chief Fire Officer amounted to unfair dismissal; unlawful disability discrimination; failure to make reasonable adjustments; and victimisation by and on behalf of the Authority.

The Director of Legal and Governance advised Members that as mentioned in the report, the Employment Judge’s decision and reasons set out at great length how the actions of the Authority’s senior officers were, in fact, proper and correct in every single respect. Mr Holland brought proceedings against the Authority when, after having crashed his car while intoxicated, and having been convicted of drunk driving, he was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Fire Officer and lost his internal appeal to the Chief Fire Officer. As well as claiming compensation from the Authority, Mr Holland also included a claim to be reinstated as an Area Commander in charge of the Blue Light Hub project in Milton Keynes. Part of Mr Holland’s unfair dismissal claim comprised 13 separate legal arguments, alleging that the internal procedures, followed by the Deputy Chief Fire Officer and the Chief Fire Officer were unlawful. Mr Holland withdrew five of those allegations on the second day of the tribunal and a further one on the last day of the tribunal. Of the seven remaining allegations the tribunal found that in fact the procedures followed by the Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer were fair and lawful.

Due to the complexity of defending a claim in which discrimination arising out of disability is alleged, legal support and advice was sought from a national law firm and from a barrister. The legal costs in defending the case since receipt of the claim brought against the Authority amounted to £98,155.14. Although the judgment had been issued and published on the internet, and is resoundingly in favour of the decisions taken by officers, it would not be possible to recover the legal costs from Mr Holland.  Moreover, the litigation was still ‘live’ in that it was not yet known if Mr Holland had lodged an appeal to the Employment Tribunal. On that latter point, the possibility of an appeal by Mr Holland could not be ruled out, so the timing of this report enabled Members, should they wish, to consider whether they would support officers in defending an appeal.

Members discussed the report and gave officers their full support to defend any future claims by Mr Holland.

A Member asked what the cost of legal fees for an appeal would be and was advised that it would be in the region of £10k.

A Members asked what the cost would be if the Authority lost the appeal and was advised that if the Authority lost the appeal and it got remitted back to the Employment Tribunal, they may be directed to consider the matter again which would cost further resources in terms of legal expenses. If it then went to a Remedies Hearing, as mention in the report, the Authority had put provision aside for £250k, based on the prudent estimate of a law firm who looked at typical awards in this type of case. That said, as Mr Holland was found to be disabled, the statutory cap was lifted and it would be a considerable sum.

An amendment having been proposed and seconded:

RESOLVED –

That the report be noted and Members give authority and support to officers in defending any appeal.