The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 357 Halsted Fireman
Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales then check out “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” athttp://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
Case Number 1501132/98
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Applicant
SUBO X
And
Respondent
Suffuck County Council
DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL HELD AT NORWICH ON 11 NOVEMBER 1998
CHAIRMAN: MR C R ASH (SITTING ALONE)
DECISION
The application PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 stands no reasonable prospect of success.
REPRESENTATION
FOR THE APPLICANT Mr C JONES SOLICITOR
FOR THE RESPONDENT MR GILLESPIE, IN HOUSE SOLICITOR
REASONS
1.The applicant is employed as a fire officer by the respondent authority. As a result of a back injury he was off sick. Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith wrote to him expressing the view that the injury was his own fault and that he was not entitled to full sick-pay under the regulations. It seems they were mistaken in that regard and they have since satisfied his wages Act claim.
2. The officer completed a near miss report advising his superiors that as a result of their threatening letter his health was at risk. That action is at the moment the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
3. He brings a claim that he has suffered a detriment in connection with Section 44 by reason of his employers actions.
4. Section 44 is quite clear in its provisions. It applies in a number of circumstances: having been designated to carry out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work the employee carried out such activities; being a representative of workers on matters of health and safety or being an employee taking part or proposing to take part in consultations with the employer or at a place where there were no representatives brought to the employers attention by reasonable means circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potential harmful to health and safety.
5. The proposition being advanced by the applicant is that the letter from the respondent authority purporting to deduct moneys from his sick-pay relates to health and safety because of the effect it had on him.
6. It seems to me and I so find, that in my opinion the linking of a letter deducting wages, albeit wrongfully, from a firefighter’s pay with an issue relating to health and safety is fanciful in the extreme. Indeed in my view it is nonsense and I am firmly of the view that this claim stands no prospect of success whatever. Were it in within my power, which it is not, I would strike it out.
7. I am satisfied the applicant is paid in the order of £22,000 per year gross. He is a householder with a mortgage of some 300.00 per month and no doubt the usual bills and expenses. I am satisfied he is well capable of paying a deposit and in this case I order the maximum deposit of £150.00 to be paid as a condition of this action proceeding further. The necessary forms are to be served pursuant to this direction.
CR ASH CHAIRMAN
Case Number 1501132/98
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Applicant
SUBO X
And
Respondent
Suffuck County Council
DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL HELD AT NORWICH ON 11 NOVEMBER 1998
CHAIRMAN: MR C R ASH (SITTING ALONE)
DECISION
The application PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 stands no reasonable prospect of success.
REPRESENTATION
FOR THE APPLICANT Mr C JONES SOLICITOR
FOR THE RESPONDENT MR GILLESPIE, IN HOUSE SOLICITOR
REASONS
1.The applicant is employed as a fire officer by the respondent authority. As a result of a back injury he was off sick. Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith wrote to him expressing the view that the injury was his own fault and that he was not entitled to full sick-pay under the regulations. It seems they were mistaken in that regard and they have since satisfied his wages Act claim.
2. The officer completed a near miss report advising his superiors that as a result of their threatening letter his health was at risk. That action is at the moment the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
3. He brings a claim that he has suffered a detriment in connection with Section 44 by reason of his employers actions.
4. Section 44 is quite clear in its provisions. It applies in a number of circumstances: having been designated to carry out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work the employee carried out such activities; being a representative of workers on matters of health and safety or being an employee taking part or proposing to take part in consultations with the employer or at a place where there were no representatives brought to the employers attention by reasonable means circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potential harmful to health and safety.
5. The proposition being advanced by the applicant is that the letter from the respondent authority purporting to deduct moneys from his sick-pay relates to health and safety because of the effect it had on him.
6. It seems to me and I so find, that in my opinion the linking of a letter deducting wages, albeit wrongfully, from a firefighter’s pay with an issue relating to health and safety is fanciful in the extreme. Indeed in my view it is nonsense and I am firmly of the view that this claim stands no prospect of success whatever. Were it in within my power, which it is not, I would strike it out.
7. I am satisfied the applicant is paid in the order of £22,000 per year gross. He is a householder with a mortgage of some 300.00 per month and no doubt the usual bills and expenses. I am satisfied he is well capable of paying a deposit and in this case I order the maximum deposit of £150.00 to be paid as a condition of this action proceeding further. The necessary forms are to be served pursuant to this direction.
CR ASH CHAIRMAN
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 6:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home