A decision to dismiss that was not on firm ground.

Scaffolder Rob was fired after just eight months following an argument and shoving match with a colleague, which forced an off-duty police officer to intervene.

He was told his conduct was unacceptable and dismissed in a phone call from his supervisor.

With Rob having under two years’ service it could not be considered to amount to an unfair dismissal.

Worried Rob had raised concerns about loose and weak planks on scaffolding he was working on. He was fearful they could shift or break and cause him or a colleague to fall.

His more experienced colleague, however, effectively insisted it was ok, he should ‘stop crying’ and get on with the job.

Rob refused to carry on working, which led to a heated row with his workmate. It resulted in them pushing each other, but not coming to blows.

A passing police officer on his way home from work stepped in to diffuse the situation.

The site supervisor was alerted. After speaking to both men, he took the decision Rob should be suspended from work.

Rob insisted he was not to blame, working conditions were unsafe and it was his colleague that pushed him first and he feared being assaulted.

The supervisor assured Rob he would get the chance to explain his case. Two days later Rob was invited to attend a fact-finding meeting as part of what was said to be the disciplinary investigation to establish the facts.

Rob insisted he was not to blame, queried if the supervisor actually checked the planks he reported, and he confirmed that he did not do so.

The supervisor said the issue was the pair ‘fighting’ in the street, a police officer having to intervene and how it reflected badly on the company.

The supervisor called Rob later the same day, said his actions amounted to gross misconduct under company policy and the decision had been taken to terminate his contract.

Rob was devastated, and believing the decision was unfair he contacted our Employee Support Centre for advice about what he could do.

Our representative discussed the case with Rob and agreed with his assessment that the decision was unfair.

Following this our representative contacted the employer to ask for confirmation of the decision in writing, and all of the evidence it had to support the decision.

A couple of days later Rob received a letter confirming he had been dismissed for assaulting a colleague following ‘a disciplinary hearing.’

With support from our representative Rob submitted a disciplinary appeal.

It included grounds that he could be considered a whistleblower who had been victimised in being wrongfully dismissed after raising legitimate health and safety concerns.

The most important thing for our representative was to be able to show that Rob reported the loose scaffolding planks, and the employer was made aware before his dismissal.

The only evidence provided to support the decision to dismiss Rob were the notes of his investigation meeting.

The notes documented that Rob had raised concerns about the loose scaffolding planks and the risk they posed, and the supervisor confirming he had not inspected them. There were no witness statements provided.

All of this information was used by our representative in his argument the so-called disciplinary process was grossly unfair, as the investigation was not thorough and fair and certainly did not comply with the good practise guidance in the ACAS Code of Practice.

It was also pointed out that if the fact-finding meeting was in fact considered to be a disciplinary hearing, as was being suggested, then Rob was also denied his statutory right to be accompanied at the meeting.

Our representative was strong in his assertion the treatment of Rob and decision to dismiss him were unfair.

Rob given how he had been treated, had understandably lost all trust and confidence in his former employer and did not want to be reinstated.

His desired appeal outcome was to reach a settlement agreement, which he was able to eventually do two weeks later with support from our representative.