A former firefighter has won her unfair dismissal case against Cleveland Fire Authority.
Julie Wilkinson, 57, was sacked unfairly from the fire brigade, an employment tribunal has found, delivering its judgement following a hearing at Teesside Magistrates’ Court in June.
In her fourth claim against the authority, she claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination because of a disability, and victimisation because she made two previous claims, one of which was a successful sexual harassment claim in 2023, saying she faced “endemic” failings and was “desperate for help” at the time.
Cleveland Fire Authority maintained it acted reasonably, dismissing her in March 2024 just over two years after she went on sick leave.
However, the tribunal found her complaint of unfair dismissal was “well-founded” and successful, as was one claim of unfavourable treatment from disability.
It dismissed the victimisation claim and a second claim of unfavourable treatment from disability.
Ms Wilkinson, from Redcar, worked as a firefighter from 2009, and was on sick leave from February 2022, following a deterioration in her mental health.
She had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression following “worsening work issues” and a “hostile work environment”, according to an occupational health report.
She was absent from work for just over two years, with her role covered by officers working overtime and being deployed from other stations as they could not recruit a permanent replacement.
The tribunal, including Employment Judge Lisa Roberton, found Ms Wilkinson was dismissed because of her sickness absence due to ill health, and that the officer who reached this decision “genuinely believed that the claimant was not capable of performing her duties as a firefighter” or an alternative role.
However, they said: “We conclude that the respondent did not adequately consult the claimant or carry out a reasonable investigation in forming that belief.
"We conclude that the decision to dismiss the claimant was outside the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer in all the circumstances.
“We are not satisfied that the respondent acted reasonably in treating the claimant’s capability as a sufficient reason for her dismissal in all the circumstances. The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds.”
The unanimous judgement from the Middlesbrough tribunal of three states: “The complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed.”
They found the brigade “acted reasonably in managing the claimant’s sickness absence in the early stages”, providing a welfare officer, offering “regular support”, and moving towards getting her back to work. But they found the brigade had “no discussions or consultation meetings” with Ms Wilkinson between October 2023 and March 2024.
They said a reasonable employer would have consulted with her about her sickness, opportunities for coming back to work and occupational health advice, but deprived her of the chance to discuss matters.
They found that a reasonable employer would have consulted her about the possibility of redeployment, which she asked to be considered, saying she was keen to resume some form of work and felt able to do so, and a doctor’s occupational health report recommended exploring this.
They said a reasonable manager would have consulted with her about the six or seven managers she felt unable to work with because of grievance procedures, steps to resolve the workplace issues, and her skills and experience for other roles.
“A reasonable employer would have gone the extra mile in considering alternative employment,” they added.
The brigade accepted Ms Wilkinson’s dismissal was “unfavourable treatment” because of her inability to perform her firefighter role arising from disability, and its aim of ensuring an effective workforce was deemed legitimate.
“The tribunal found, however, that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim.
“The respondent did not give proper consideration to the possibility of the claimant returning to work in an alternative role in response to her position that she now felt ready to do some work.
"It had not been established on the evidence that exploration of redeployment at the time of the decision to dismiss the claimant would have proved futile.
“As such, we conclude that dismissal was not proportionate.”
The judgment states: “The complaint that the claimant’s dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability is well founded and succeeds.”
They found it was proportionate to start a formal capability procedure around September 2023, by which time Ms Wilkinson had been absent for more than a year with occupational health advice that she was unfit for her firefighter role or another role, with no date or plan for a return to work.
Recommended reading:
They dismissed her complaint about this procedure as “not well founded”.
Finally, they ruled the dismissal was “in no sense whatsoever” motivated by Ms Wilkinson bringing other claims against the brigade, adding: “As such the complaint of victimisation is not made out and fails.”
The tribunal said a member of the brigade came into Ms Wilkinson’s home the day she called in sick and searched all the rooms while she was out, then she said she was “shaken” when someone came in uninvited, shouted her name up the stairs, banged on a door and left notes in the home.
The brigade said “all of the staff involved in the decision to enter her home did so through nothing other than concern for her”, but acknowledged more could have been done to explore her safety and an investigating manager apologised, the tribunal added in its findings.
Share