Veteran coastguards sacked for rescuing car from cliff edge

[RichardS]

Soooo... just to be clear.... they are free to determine when they undertake tasks which are part of their “employment”??

Cause it would seem to me that the return and restoration of equipment ready for further use is part of their contracted work, and it’s not really down to them to decide when and if they should do that.

If they had left their gear in the field, and pissed off to the pub for a couple of bevvies, would that be acceptable?

I would have thought that the difference between being on a "shout" and then being "stood down" was so clearly different to "freedom to determine when they undertake which tasks are part if their employment" that it would not need me to explain it.

As for "pissing off to the pub for a couple of bevvies", have you ever worked in an organisation?

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Unfair dismissal legislation, with very, very few exceptions, does not cover unpaid volunteers. I am intrigued to know how you are going to work round that.
I run an organisation with about fifty unpaid volunteers if safety-critical roles If we told a couple of them not to do something and a couple of them said "OK, we'll go off duty for fifteen minutes and do it anyway" we would not be amused at all.

Good grief .... this thread reached the usual level of stupefying pain even quicker than the usual YBW specials.

What is it about "I would need to see their contractual details to understand what their actual status is." that is so hard for you to understand, because, believe it or not, there have been successful unfair dismissal cases involving voluntary workers. It all depends upon the contractual terms in place.

Being "not amused" is not the same as "being dismissed".

Richard

 

[photodog]

This is likely to be seen in the context of reasonable behaviour. Nipping off to the pub would clearly not be reasonable and might well be illegal if they later drove the vehicle. Stopping off to help out the old bloke in distress would be a different scenario and if that is all there was to it, I think it would be entirely reasonable.
The problem they might have as volunteers is that they might not be employees legally thus having no, or lesser, rights under employment legislation.

If it was reasonable for them to assist this guy, and their excuse for doing so is that they feared for his safety as they believed he would attempt to rescue the vehicle on his own... Then why did they not use the MCA equipment?

Surely even if they are stood down, if they are on scene and believe their is a risk to life, then they should assist...and if they had done that, then they would have had reasonable arguement for their actions...

As it was, there is none.

They placed others at risk by not returning an emergency services vehicle to service, And despite everyone saying that it wasn’t left unnattended I find that difficult to believe, as they clearly left the scene to fetch their own vehicle... to act as a vollunteer recovery crew...

They were the two most senior staff on station. Their actions were no different than if they had pissed off down the pub, and if their was actually any risk to life they simply should have used the mca gear and argued the toss afterwards... I note the fire brigade didn’t assist either... and they will help out at the drop of a hat.

Entitled senior staff showing poor leadership and judgment which in effect left others at risk, to do something which was of no consequence.

I’d sack em.

 

[RichardS]

Indeed. You can't unfairly dismiss people you don't employ.

However, you can unfairly dismiss "workers", and they might not be "employees".

Richard

 

[photodog]

I would have thought that the difference between being on a "shout" and then being "stood down" was so clearly different to "freedom to determine when they undertake which tasks are part if their employment" that it would not need me to explain it.

As for "pissing off to the pub for a couple of bevvies", have you ever worked in an organisation?

Richard

I own an organisation.

And my employees have tasks and responsibilities and they dont get to determine when and if they should undertake or fulfill those.

Rules are rules.


Ps... your arguement that their tasks and responsibilities are finished after being “stood down” is nonsense... they will still be acting within their role as coastguards until they have finished any tasks an responsibilities which being on a shout entail... and this clearly includes the return of company equipment to whence it came.

Do you see firemen just pissing off Leaving the fire truck on the side of the road?

 

[photodog]

However, you can unfairly dismiss "workers", and they might not be "employees".

Richard

How much do volunteers make?

 

[RichardS]

If it was reasonable for them to assist this guy, and their excuse for doing so is that they feared for his safety as they believed he would attempt to rescue the vehicle on his own... Then why did they not use the MCA equipment?

Surely even if they are stood down, if they are on scene and believe their is a risk to life, then they should assist...and if they had done that, then they would have had reasonable arguement for their actions...

As it was, there is none.

Good grief. They did the best they could to follow the MCA rules by not acting outwith an official assignment in MCA uniform and with MCA equipment and you believe that they should have use MCA uniforms and equipment and argued about it later.

On the basis of the MCA management decision taken in the extant case, your suggestion would have resulted in them being taken out an summarily executed by firing squad.

Thank the Lord that you never attained a senior position in a well-functioning organisation.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

How much do volunteers make?

Interestingly, I filed an ET1 on behalf of a dismissed employee only last year. The compensation I claimed on their behalf was nothing whatsoever to do with their level of earnings. Absolutely no link whatsoever. The Company employed a specialist lawyer from a top London law firm. Unfortunately for them, it was all to no avail and they coughed up big time. :encouragement:

Richard

 

[RichardS]

I own an organisation.

And my employees have tasks and responsibilities and they dont get to determine when and if they should undertake or fulfill those.

Rules are rules.


Ps... your arguement that their tasks and responsibilities are finished after being “stood down” is nonsense... they will still be acting within their role as coastguards until they have finished any tasks an responsibilities which being on a shout entail... and this clearly includes the return of company equipment to whence it came.

Do you see firemen just pissing off Leaving the fire truck on the side of the road?

Ah, so were talking about "employees" are we now? It's time for you to piss or get off the pot, I'm afraid.

Richard

 

[photodog]

Good grief. They did the best they could to follow the MCA rules by not acting outwith an official assignment in MCA uniform and with MCA equipment and you believe that they should have use MCA uniforms and equipment and argued about it later.

On the basis of the MCA management decision taken in the extant case, your suggestion would have resulted in them being taken out an summarily executed by firing squad.

Thank the Lord that you never attained a senior position in a well-functioning organisation.

Richard

They would have had a much stronger case if they had stayed and acted as MCA coast guards. Whoever stood them down was not on scene. As it stands now they are stuffed.

They should have had a discussion with their controller, clearly the MCA have a duty of care to folks, and if the controller didn’t agree to them helping they should have waited for a tow truck, or, if the driver was of such poor judgment as they feared, waited for the police.

The excuse they used to assist simply doesn’t hold water. If they honestly felt that the elderly driver was incapable fo making a sound decision surrounding his own safety... why did they not get the police involved?

Instead they, abandoned their emergency vehicle, and put this old duffer who they felt was incapable of driving safely, back in the drivers seat and waived him off.

Jesus, it just gets WORSE AND WORSE.

 

[photodog]

Interestingly, I filed an ET1 on behalf of a dismissed employee only last year. The compensation I claimed on their behalf was nothing whatsoever to do with their level of earnings. Absolutely no link whatsoever. The Company employed a specialist lawyer from a top London law firm. Unfortunately for them, it was all to no avail and they coughed up big time. :encouragement:

Richard

Bollocks, you know as well as I that “unfair dismissal” damages are calculated via the proscribed formula which is entirely dependent on wages. You can go to it now on the .gov website and put in zero as wages and see what it spits out.

 

[Seajet]

When I worked in the Fire Service one of my crew jumped into a dock, against specific instructions not to, in an unsuccessful attempt a rescue a person in a submerged car. He was given, quite rightly, a gallantry award.
I remember the shocking case of 2 PCSOs in Manchester who refused to attempt to rescue a drowning child from a frozen lake. Having worked alongside members of all emergency services I could mot believe that they had taken this decision.
No one should be coerced into risking their own life for others but, having done so voluntarilyy, disciplinary action is inappropriate beyond belief.
This cannot be seen as anything other than ar*e covering by people who place their careers above human life.
I used to teach dynamic risk assessment and used the scenario of a child trapped in a burning building containing LPG cylinders. I taught that the the law said to not commit rescue crews. Everyone in the room smirked at that concept.

:encouragement:

 

[RichardS]

Jesus, it just gets WORSE AND WORSE.

Don't give up heart, you're doing your best. :encouragement:

But if you think you're bombing now, let's await the re-reinstatement on appeal as explaining that is going to be tricky for you.

Richard

 

[photodog]

Ah, so were talking about "employees" are we now? It's time for you to piss or get off the pot, I'm afraid.

Richard

Your the one that’s claiming they should be treated as such, and you would win them a big settlement.

You don’t think that “volunteers” have tasks and responsibilities associated with their roles?

Frankly, I think your just blowing hot air and haven’t thought it through.

 

[photodog]

Don't give up heart, you're doing your best. :encouragement:

But if you think you're bombing now, let's await the re-reinstatement on appeal as explaining that is going to be tricky for you.

Richard

How is it going to be tricky for me? I’m not the one who seems to be saying that he would win a couple of volunteers a big settlement for unfair dismissal...

I think they should be got rid of. It’s up to the MCA to decide if they want to rehabilitate them into the service or not.

 

[RichardS]

Your the one that’s claiming they should be treated as such, and you would win them a big settlement.

You don’t think that “volunteers” have tasks and responsibilities associated with their roles?

Frankly, I think your just blowing hot air and haven’t thought it through.

How many times do I have to keep referring to post #1 where it clearly says "I would need to see their contractual details to understand what their actual status is."

Please can you up your game to the next level as this is getting tiresome.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Bollocks, you know as well as I that “unfair dismissal” damages are calculated via the proscribed formula which is entirely dependent on wages. You can go to it now on the .gov website and put in zero as wages and see what it spits out.

There are many categories of dismissal and, for some of them, there is no relationship between earnings and compensation. Before you declare "bollocks", you really need to read the written words a lot more carefully .... although that clearly is not your style.

Richard

 

[photodog]

There are many categories of dismissal and, for some of them, there is no relationship between earnings and compensation. Before you declare "bollocks", you really need to read the written words a lot more carefully .... although that clearly is not your style.

Richard

Yeah, I did read exactly what you wrote... and it was ever so clever that you just said ET1.... which of course everyone knows is the bog standard filing form which covers every type of action that can be pursued in the ET.

But we were not talking about every type where we??? You specifically talked about unfair dismissal.... so talking about your filing a ET1 had no bearing on that, as you were using that to attempt to somehow substantiate your position that a vollunteer could make a unfair dismissal claim.

So your claim to expertise surrounding unfair dismissal, based on filing a ET1 and winning, was just as I said.

And whilst I have not myself made a claim in the ET, or in the previous incarnation of IT, I have as most employers no doubt, had to deal with several from disgruntled ex employees. I’m happy to say I have never lost one.

 

[photodog]

How many times do I have to keep referring to post #1 where it clearly says "I would need to see their contractual details to understand what their actual status is."

Please can you up your game to the next level as this is getting tiresome.

Richard

Yeah, nicely covered yourself there.

Gets all Gammon.

Makes grandiose claim.

Then backtracks and says he’d have to check the paperwork.

Reminds me of most Tory politicians. You wouldn’t be Liam Fox would you?

 

[RichardS]

You specifically talked about unfair dismissal.... so talking about your filing a ET1 had no bearing on that, as you were using that to attempt to somehow substantiate your position that a vollunteer could make a unfair dismissal claim.

So your claim to expertise surrounding unfair dismissal, based on filing a ET1 and winning, was just as I said.

I will repeat this from my first post once again as you simply don't seem to have understood it:

If these were employees in the normal sense they would be in line for a big unfair dismissal payout, and I'd be happy to represent them in court as the case would be a slam dunk win. They might still get a payout if the MCA doesn't reverse its decision although I would need to see their contractual details to understand what their actual status is.

Now, where do I say anything about volunteers being able to make an unfair dismissal claim?

It is the case that some people are ostensibly taken on as "volunteers" and are regarded as such by their organisation but, by dint of their documentation, rewards or activities, would actually be regarded by an Employment Tribunal as being workers or employees and both categories of these do have rights under employment law. However, as I keep saying, ad nauseam, I would need to see that documentation etc to be able to take a sensible judgement on that matter.

Richard