Duty manager dismissed for closing pool after water clarity concerns

CASE SUMMARY 

The case of Burt v Patrinton Haven Leisure Park involved an appeal of an Employment Tribunal decision on 20 February 1996 which dismissed Mr Burt's claim for unfair dismissal brought under section 57A of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. 

Mr Burt was employed as Duty Manager at the respondent's premises. An incident arose on 20 August 1995, which resulted in Mr Burt closing the pool early. Mr Burt's account was that at about 17:20, the swimming pool water became cloudy. A pool water test revealed that chlorine levels in the pool were too low. After attempting to rectify the situation, ten minutes later, the situation had still not improved, and Mr Burt took the decision to close the pool. 

The Employment Tribunal (ET), at first instance, decided that Mr Burt's decision did not constitute 'appropriate steps' within the meaning of Regulation 14 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and his internal procedure, the latter of which read: 

...in circumstances of danger which he reasonably believed to be series and imminant, took, or proposed to take, appropriate steps to protect himself or other persons from the danger. 

The Employment Tribunal felt that the appropriate steps for Mr Burt to have taken would have been to contact Mr Jackson (his superior) and put the responsibility on him as the park manager to close the pool or, if Mr Jackson was unavailable, exercise his discretion. 

On appeal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal found that the Employment Tribunal did not misdirect themselves in law in concluding two of the claimant's grounds that Mr Burt's actions were not appropriate. However, the EAT found that the ET had failed to consider the alternative ground put forward by the claimant under section 57A(1)(a) (now repealed) that a dismissal will be considered unfair if one or more of the grounds for his dismissal was that, as a person designated by his employer as being responsible for safety, he had carried out those activities. The EAT allowed the matter to be remitted for a full hearing on this issue. 

It is unknown whether Mr Burt was successful in his claim at the rehearing, but the case raises important points about following internal processes, even when faced with potential danger to the public. 

References

Burt v Patrington Haven Leisure Park [1996] UKEAT 424 96 0312

Citation. Jacklin, D. 2023. Duty manager dismissed for closing the pool after water clarity concerns. Water Incident Research Hub, 28 January.