RNLI Helmsman Dismissed After Unfair Investigation in the Workplace, Rules Tribunal

Published : November 12, 2025

In Mr Glenn D Monroe v Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), the former Thames Commander of the Chiswick Lifeboat has succeeded with his unfair dismissal claim, after it was found he’d faced an unfair investigation in the workplace. Although multiple allegations of gross misconduct were raised against him, he wasn’t fully informed of their details, and many were ultimately unproven.

In our latest article, we examine the case facts, the tribunal’s judgment, and what constitutes an unfair investigation at work. We then explore the steps individuals can take if their rights have been breached.

If you believe you’ve experienced something similar and want expert employment advice, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As specialists in the sector, we can assess your case, answer your queries and discuss how you could proceed. Should you have an eligible claim, we can also guide you through the legal process.

It only takes a moment to discover how we can help you, simply:

The Facts in Mr Glenn D Monroe v Royal National Lifeboat Institution

Background to the Unfair Investigation in the Workplace

Mr Glenn D Monroe (“the Claimant”) began working as a Helmsman for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (“the Respondent”) on 19 November 2001, having previously volunteered for it since 1986. At the time of his dismissal, he was employed as the Thames Commander of the Chiswick Lifeboat, based at Chiswick Lifeboat Station.

Read More: Asda Worker’s Dismissal for Gross Misconduct Found Unfair After Flawed Investigation

Issues arose on 19 February 2024, when the Claimant was notified that he’d been suspended from work with immediate effect. He was told this was to investigate “alleged discriminatory and unacceptable behaviours,” including racist, sexist and derogatory language. His suspension and the allegations, which included “referring to the Mayor of London as a terrorist,” were confirmed in writing the same day.

Disciplinary Process Follows Investigation

The Claimant was subsequently invited to an investigatory meeting, scheduled for 28 February. At such time, he denied calling the Mayor of London a terrorist based on his race, asserting that he felt “terrorised by his schemes around cars.” He also denied using the “n-word,” but accepted that he’d repeated a joke told to him, including the word “paki,” which he admitted, on reflection, “wasn’t appropriate.” Concerning the majority of the other allegations, he requested further information.

At the meeting’s conclusion, the Claimant was asked to confirm his position on the allegations and whether he understood that the behaviour was unacceptable and contrary to policy. The Claimant highlighted this comment, as he believed it proved the decision to dismiss him had already been made.

Once further meetings with witnesses had been conducted, the Respondent invited the Claimant to a disciplinary hearing on 12 April. The letter explained that the Respondent had concluded that he’d breached its Code of Conduct, but didn’t set out the specific allegations. During the proceedings, the tribunal found this “remarkable,” particularly since he’d been informed that the allegations constituted gross misconduct, which could result in summary dismissal.

Claimant Dismissed Following Investigation in the Workplace

On 26 April, the disciplinary hearing went ahead. Here, there was a dispute concerning the Claimant’s response as to whether or not he could change his behaviour. While the Respondent maintained that he said, “No,” the Claimant asserted that he actually said, “I honestly don’t know.” This distinction was crucial, as the Respondent’s view that the Claimant said he couldn’t change ultimately swayed its decision.

The decision to dismiss the Claimant was communicated to him at the conclusion of the hearing. The Respondent explained that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and, thus, warranted summary dismissal. This decision was confirmed in a letter dated 7 May.

While the Claimant decided not to appeal the decision, he brought claims to the employment tribunal. His case included claims of wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal, and age discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the tribunal first addressed the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. It began by establishing the reason for dismissal, which was found to be conduct, a potentially fair reason.

However, while the tribunal ruled the Respondent held a genuine belief that the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct, it didn’t find that the belief was held on reasonable grounds. This was primarily because the Respondent’s investigation in the workplace comprised several flaws. Among other things, the Respondent hadn’t outlined every allegation made against the Claimant, nor had it specified the date and time of each alleged offence, breaching its own disciplinary procedure and the Acas Code of Practice.

With this in mind, the tribunal also ruled that the decision to dismiss wasn’t within the range of reasonable responses. Given the unfair investigation at work, the Claimant’s service length and his previous clean disciplinary record, something like a final written warning would have been more suitable. As such, his unfair dismissal claim was upheld.

Moving on, the tribunal looked at the wrongful dismissal claim. Again, it was found that most of the allegations against the Claimant hadn’t been proven, and what remained didn’t amount to gross misconduct. Consequently, the decision to summarily dismiss him wasn’t justified and constituted a breach of contract, meaning this claim succeeded, too.

While the Claimant’s final claim of age discrimination was dismissed, since he succeeded with the others, his case will now proceed to a remedy hearing to determine his compensation. This hearing is scheduled to take place on 15 December 2025.

I am Being Investigated at Work: What Are My Rights in the UK?

Under UK employment law and the Acas Code of Practice, employers are required to adhere to specific standards when conducting an investigation in the workplace. Failing to do so can amount to a procedural breach and may expose them to legal claims and financial penalties.

The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts before deciding whether disciplinary action is warranted. It isn’t, in itself, a disciplinary process and shouldn’t be treated as such. Any investigation must be impartial, thorough, and completed without unnecessary delay.

As noted, employers are expected to follow their own internal procedures alongside the Acas Code of Practice. This means that employees should generally be informed of the allegations against them, provided with relevant evidence, and given a fair opportunity to respond. The investigator must remain objective, consider all relevant information, and ensure the matter is handled promptly.

While suspension may occur during an investigation, it shouldn’t be automatic. It’s typically only appropriate where an employee’s continued presence could compromise the investigation, other staff, or company property. Alternatives, such as temporary redeployment, should always be considered first. Where suspension is necessary, though, it must be on full pay and clarified that it’s not a disciplinary sanction.

Other rights, such as being accompanied at meetings, may depend on the employer’s policies, so it’s important to review these carefully. As circumstances vary from case to case, seeking specialist legal advice is advisable to ensure one’s rights are protected.

Unfair Investigation in the Workplace: What Can I Do?

If an individual’s employer fails to conduct a fair and reasonable investigation, several avenues for redress are available. Whether the investigation is believed to be biased, incomplete or mishandled, the first step is usually to raise one’s concerns with their manager or HR.

Should the matter remain unresolved, the next option is to raise a formal grievance. This should be done in accordance with the employer’s policy, if one exists. Like an informal chat, resolving the matter here prevents the need for formal proceedings; however, this step imposes additional legal obligations on the employer.

Read More: New Employment Rights Bill Enters ‘Ping Pong’ Stage After Lords Reject Day-One Unfair Dismissal and Zero-Hours Reforms

Where internal avenues fail to provide a satisfactory outcome, Acas early conciliation should be considered. This free and impartial process is required before most employment tribunal claims can be brought, and offers another opportunity to resolve the issue before legal action is necessary.

However, if all else fails, the final step is to initiate tribunal proceedings. Strict eligibility criteria and time limits must be adhered to; however, if one’s case is successful, compensation may be awarded.

Notably, it’s recommended to collect as much evidence before pursuing a remedy, as doing so will likely strengthen one’s case. Furthermore, seeking specialist legal help is advised to ensure the law is fully understood and an optimal outcome is achieved.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’ve faced an unfair investigation at work, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment specialists, we can assess your case, address your questions, and discuss your possible next steps.

It only takes a moment to begin your journey with us, simply:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.