A senior fireman who was fired for racism has gained nearly £15,000 after an employment tribunal discovered he was unfairly dismissed.

Lee Glyde was Watch Supervisor at Salisbury Hearth Station in Wiltshire when an investigation was launched in 2018 about doubtlessly offensive feedback he had made.

The firefighter was heard telling colleagues Grenfell Tower was ‘filled with immigrants’ throughout a dialog in regards to the 2017 blaze, a listening to in Southampton heard.  

He additionally described his relationship with one in every of his former bosses as ‘being handled worse than Jews in a focus camp’. 

Mr Glyde’s bosses at Dorset and Wiltshire Hearth and Rescue Service deemed all of his feedback as racist and fired the firefighter for gross misconduct after nearly 20 years’ service.

However an employment tribunal has now discovered he was unfairly dismissed and awarded him £14,915.52 in compensation.

The tribunal dominated that whereas among the feedback had been ‘socially inept’ they weren’t racist.

Lee Glyde (pictured) was Watch Manager at Salisbury Fire Station in Wiltshire when an investigation was launched in 2018

Lee Glyde (pictured) was Watch Supervisor at Salisbury Hearth Station in Wiltshire when an investigation was launched in 2018

It additionally questioned the wording and validity of the fees levelled in opposition to him, and raised considerations in regards to the investigation into him and the disciplinary course of that adopted.

The tribunal heard that following the Grenfell catastrophe in June 2017, which claimed the lives of 72 folks, Mr Glyde had taken half in a dialogue with colleagues about it. 

He defined he had requested his brother, who was a well being and security inspector in London, whether or not he had inspected the tower block. 

His brother mentioned it was not in his space however had commented ‘it could be filled with fairly a couple of immigrants’, in keeping with Mr Glyde.

The firefighter mentioned he handed this touch upon to his colleagues. 

Investigators had been advised by 4 of his colleagues that Mr Glyde talked about his brother when making the assertion, with one even stressing this was not a comment made in a derogatory means.

Nevertheless, one mentioned Mr Glyde had said: ‘It was most likely simply filled with immigrants anyway.’ 

This was the wording used within the cost subsequently made in opposition to him, the tribunal heard.

Three colleagues additionally recalled him saying throughout a course in October 2017 that when the menace stage of terrorism was extreme they’d be allowed to go as much as Muslims and ‘restrain them’. 

The tribunal additionally heard that Mr Glyde reportedly mentioned ‘I guess they’ve simply s*** themselves’ whereas sat in a fireplace engine at site visitors lights and seeing a army helicopter fly over a automotive carrying Asian passengers.  

Nevertheless, the colleagues couldn’t agree on how many individuals had been sat within the automotive or affirm in the event that they had been an ethnic minority.  

In the course of the listening to Mr Glyde accepted he had described his earlier Station Supervisor as treating his colleagues ‘worse than Jews in a focus camp’. 

An employment tribunal has now found the firefighter was unfairly dismissed and awarded him £14,915.52 in compensation

An employment tribunal has now discovered the firefighter was unfairly dismissed and awarded him £14,915.52 in compensation

Mr Glyde was working at Salisbury Fire Station in Wiltshire (pictured) when bosses deemed all his comments as racist and fired him

Mr Glyde was working at Salisbury Hearth Station in Wiltshire (pictured) when bosses deemed all his feedback as racist and fired him

After the investigation was launched in January 2018, Mr Glyde signed himself off work because of stress and was suspended shortly after.

He was sacked in Could 2019 after being discovered responsible of gross misconduct.

Nevertheless, the tribunal discovered this resolution to be unfair.   

‘For a remark to be racist it could have to be hostile or derogatory in direction of a sure nationality or ethnic minorities or in phrases from which an antipathy or animosity to them might be inferred,’ the panel discovered.

‘[Mr Glyde] was not accused of constructing any overtly discriminatory, insulting or hostile remarks in direction of any race or ethnic minority.’

Of the Grenfell comment, Employment Choose Max Craft famous that the complete remark he was accused of constructing was disputed by Mr Glyde.

‘The inclusion of the phrases ”simply” and ”anyway” change what [Mr Glyde] has mentioned was a press release of reality to a derogatory comment from which it might be inferred he had a callous and uncaring angle in direction of the residents of the Tower who had been immigrants,’ he mentioned.

There was additionally conflicting proof in regards to the remark made concerning the Asian household and the helicopter, the tribunal discovered.

The tribunal heard Mr Glyde accepted he had made an extra remark about working over a terrorist to 2 of his colleagues.

He mentioned he made this remark within the context of quite a few terrorist incidents that had lately occurred and claimed ‘it was not directed at any explicit race or ethnic minority however at terrorists’.

Choose Craft mentioned: ‘[Mr Glyde] made no reference to any race or ethnic minority in making the comment. He referred to terrorists. An affordable employer appearing moderately wouldn’t have discovered that to be a racist remark.’

Concerning the focus camp comparability, the tribunal choose mentioned it was ‘inappropriate’ however not racist.

He mentioned: ‘The truth that a comment is immature and socially inept doesn’t make it discriminatory or racist.

‘Nevertheless an inexpensive employer appearing moderately wouldn’t have concluded it demonstrated any animosity or antipathy in direction of Jews. It couldn’t have been thought of a racist remark for that motive.’

The tribunal concluded the fireplace service ought to have thought of mitigating elements – resembling Mr Glyde’s nearly 20 years of beforehand unblemished service and the ‘tough home circumstances’ he was going via on the time – extra totally earlier than firing him.

 If they’d, it mentioned, then ‘dismissal wouldn’t [have fallen] into a variety of cheap choices obtainable to it to cope with these points’. 

A separate declare of incapacity discrimination was dismissed.