Pool plant operator dismissed for making water quality worse

CASE SUMMARY 

The case of Oliver v Relaxion Group Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1268 98 0507 concerned a duty manager who managed a swimming pool at Carn Brae Leisure Centre. Mr Oliver had obtained a pool plant operator certificate four years before the incident. Although he had requested it, his employer had not granted his request to attend a refresher course. 

Whilst an employee of the local authority, Mr Oliver had been able to rely on Mr Tredinnich, the Council's plant engineer, to rectify and advise on water quality issues. The Council was in the process of handing over control of the site on Sunday, 9 November 1997, to the defendant, and Mr Oliver was in charge of the pool over the handover weekend. 

On Saturday, 8 November 1997, at around 09:00, Mr Oliver noticed the swimming pool water was murky and unclear. A ballack, which allowed fresh water from the mains supply to enter the plant, was identified as not operating correctly, and this was put right by Mr Butler, a Council electrician. Mr Oliver then proceeded to do a pool water test. The water test results revealed the ph was low, and Mr Oliver proceeded to increase the chlorine levels in the pool. The Tribunal, at first instance, found Mr Oliver's response reasonable in the circumstances. Mr Oliver instructed Mr Lee, a plumber by trade, to put four scoops of calcium hypochlorite and a quantity of alum flocculent into the pool to resolve the cloudiness. 

Unfortunately for Mr Oliver, the pool water quality did not improve.  Mr Oliver tried to contact Mr Tredinnich for advice but was unsuccessful in reaching him. Mr Oliver proceeded to ask Mr Lee to put five or six scoops of calcium hypochlorite into the strainer basket, but still, there was no success. The problem persisted until the following day, where, under threat of a £1,200 per day penalty from the Council if the pool was not opened, Mr Oliver took the decision to drain and refill the pool at very considerable expense to his employer. 

On 11 November, Mr Oliver was suspended after an investigation meeting for gross misconduct based on two counts: 

• That he had placed Mr Lee in danger by instructing him to administer sodium hypochlorite without proper health and safety training. 
• That in administering substantial quantities of sodium hypochlorite into the pool and, subsequently, the drainage system when it was drained (something noted by the sewerage undertaker), he had been grossly incompetent, amounting to gross neglect. 

The defendant summarily dismissed Mr Oliver from his job. Mr Oliver brought a claim for unfair dismissal under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The question before the Employment Appeals Tribunal was whether, under section 98(4) of the Act, his employer acted reasonably. The EAT found that the Tribunal had erred in making its own judgment as to whether it would have dismissed the Appellant rather than whether the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer (Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones (1982) IRLR 439). Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for a re-hearing. The outcome of the re-hearing is not known. 

References 

Oliver v Relaxion Group Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1268 98 0507.

Citation. Jacklin, D. 2023. Oliver v Relaxion Group Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1268 98 0507. Water Incident Research Hub, 28 January.