M v A petrochemical company

07 Oct 2013

New member Paul Strelitz, instructed by Euan Smith, partner at Pinsent Masons, successfully represented a petrochemical company in a multi-day Employment Tribunal claim, which tested their very strict approach to safety regime.

An employee who had been with the household name petrochemicals giant for over 24 years was dismissed after he failed to respond properly to two successive alarms despite there being no adverse effects or consequences.

Within the Employment Tribunal the Claimant sought to challenge the validity of his training, belatedly referred to medical condition, and also criticised the harshness of such a sanction in the circumstances.

After evidence heard over three days Employment Judge Maidment, sitting at the Hull Employment Tribunal, provided a 20 page reserved decision dismissing the Claim for unfair dismissal and referring in particular to the importance which the Claimant's employer placed upon safety at work.

This was seen as a fantastic result by the Respondent who had placed such great store on the standards of safety expected on site. In addition safety-critical employment locations generally can draw comfort when they decide to dismiss employees for a single incident which breached health and safety requirements, even after extremely long periods of satisfactory/good employment by the employee concerned.


This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.


Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Gatehouse Chambers. However, if you have any other queries about this content please contact: