First aider who refused to help casualty was fairly dismissed

Peach v Fareham College ET/3103065/09

Date added: 9 December 2010

unfair dismissal | gross misconduct | first aid

In this case, a first-aider’s refusal to assist a student in need of help warranted his summary dismissal. 

Practical tips

Employees should be given a reasonable opportunity to call relevant witnesses at disciplinary hearings, but there is no obligation on an employer to call witnesses at a hearing if it considers it reasonable not to do so. 

In this case, the tribunal found that the employer’s decision not to call witnesses at the disciplinary hearing was reasonable, given that the essential facts of the matter at hand were not in dispute, and that the hearing turned on the reasons why the employee had acted (or failed to act) as he did. 

Mr Peach was employed as a maintenance officer at Fareham College, where part of his duties was to act as one of the college’s first-aiders. He was required to offer first-aid assistance at all times. On 4 February 2009, Mr Peach injured his knee and was off work for five weeks. On his return, he reported that his knee was a little weak, but did not report an inability to kneel or any other way in which his injured knee might limit his role. 

On 19 March 2009, a lecturer, Ms Perkins, called on Mr Peach to attend a potentially serious first-aid incident, which involved a student who was lying in pain on a toilet floor. However, Mr Peach declined to assist, offering a number of excuses. Ms Perkins complained, and the college held an investigation meeting with Mr Peach on 1 April 2009. At the meeting, Mr Peach said that he had declined to attend the incident because he was aware that the casualty was on the ground, and felt that his knee injury would have prevented him from kneeling down. He also said that he had left a colleague on a maintenance lift, and that he had had to return to him for health and safety reasons. 

The investigation report concluded that Mr Peach did not fulfil his duty as a first-aider, that his failure could have resulted in the death of the student, and that his reasons for not assisting were unreasonable. A disciplinary hearing was held on 29 April 2009, at which Mr Peach conceded that he should have at least assessed the incident, and that the position of his colleague on the maintenance lift was such that there was no breach of health and safety regulations in leaving him there. Mr Peach showed no remorse regarding his actions, and at the conclusion of the meeting was dismissed for gross misconduct. The college rejected Mr Peach’s appeal, and he claimed unfair dismissal. 

At the tribunal hearing, Mr Peach argued that the disciplinary investigation should have been conducted by his line manager, who knew him personally, and who “would have known if [he] was the type of person to try and get out of performing duties”. The tribunal found this reasoning flawed, and that it is misconceived to suggest that a suitable investigating officer is one who would form a judgment from extraneous evidence as to whether or not the subject of the investigation is likely to be culpable. 

Mr Peach also alleged that the college’s failure to call witnesses at the disciplinary hearing deprived him of the opportunity of cross-examining Ms Perkins. The tribunal rejected this criticism, not only on the basis that employers are under no obligation to call witnesses “as if the disciplinary hearing were a criminal trial”, but also because the college gave Mr Peach the right to call witnesses himself if he wished to do so. 

The tribunal found that the disciplinary officer’s findings followed a conscientious and careful analysis of the evidence and the issues, and that there were ample grounds for him to reach the conclusions that he did. Accordingly, it found that Mr Peach had been fairly dismissed. 

View the full transcript of the case  

Additional resources