Forum Topic

Chiswick RLNI helmsman sacked

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/27/rnli-boatman-sacked-after-calling-sadiq-khan-a-terrorist/I would normally summarise  but you need to read the whole article to get some perspective.

Adrian Irving ● 6d20 Comments

“ Nobody is disputing the points you made in your last post but this isn't what you were saying earlier on.”And in my earlier post I quoted verbatim from the leader page of this forum. You seem to getting more and more confused. And, whilst I read some of the 53 pages of the court transcript the end result was that the individual was found to have been unfairly dismissed “ Procedural Failings: The primary reason for the ruling in Monroe's favour was the RNLI's failure to follow proper disciplinary procedures. The tribunal identified several "fundamental failings" in the charity's investigation, including:Failing to inform Monroe in writing of all the specific allegations against him.Failing to conduct a reasonable investigation or attempt to establish the facts, instead summarising personal opinions.Having a "closed mindset" and not considering alternatives to dismissal.Outcome: The claim of age discrimination was dismissed by the tribunal as not well-founded. A separate remedy hearing to determine the appropriate compensation for Monroe has been set for December 15, 2025.”

Steve Taylor ● 1d

They sacked lifesavers over some saucy mugs - isn't saving lives more important than HR rules?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-44465859

Davy Jones ● 1d

'Well done for lowering yourself to insults when someone annoys you by pointing out facts' The next editions of all the world's dictionaries now have the perfect example of projection. Nobody is disputing the points you made in your last post but this isn't what you were saying earlier on. You said "he is guilty of nothing because he was found to have been in unfairly dismissed" and it has been pointed out to you that the more balanced reporting of this case and the text of the judgement show this to be wrong. You also said, "I am wondering how many will cancel their donations to RLNI knowing that the organisation is wasting money on nonsensical allegations." Once again this seems to be a view garnered from a Daily Mail headline rather than any actual knowledge of what happened. Glen Monroe should get a lot of credit for his year's of service but the people complaining about him give their time to make our lives safer for free and what they say deserves a bit more respect than such an out-of-hand dismissal by someone who has not spent any time trying to find out what they had said.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1d

Mark, well done for lowering yourself to resort to insults when someone annoys you by pointing out facts. And well done for pouring through 53 pages of testimony to try make a point. Sad little man that you are.  Not surprising that you were frustrated to find you have no point as the person in question won his case because it was accepted that he was unfairly dismissed. My comment was purely to express the hope that he will be fairly compensated for his unfair dismissal. Hopefully the management at the Charity will have learnt some lessons in dealing ‘professionally’ in such cases in the future instead of wasting donors’ money.

Steve Taylor ● 2d

Steve you may have been involved in tribunals in the past and you may have even won your case but Andrew is right that you misunderstand their nature. The guilt or innocence of Glen Monroe was not being decided although conclusion did say "some of the complaints against Mr Monroe were upheld and that their ruling did not exonerate his conduct"I took Andrew's advice and read the complete text of the judgement. Having done so, I can only say that the case was very complex and difficult but clearly wasn't just a matter of some people being over-sensitive.When you have come out with declarations of fact which are plainly false in the past, I've suggested you check the evidence but you never do. Perhaps your sclerotic brain has passed the point were you can change your mind on anything so I'd suggest to others not to bother trying to put you right.

Mark Evans ● 3d

Totally agree. Hopefully he will get good compensation for being unfairly dismissed even if Andrew OSullivan doesn’t understand how tribunals work.

Steve Taylor ● 3d

There is definitely a 'your as good as your last week's work' smell about this,never mind the years of exemplary service.I hope he gets a fais result and that his pension,if there s one for this role,is not affected.It sometimes only takes one person in a workforce who has a particular agenda to come in and take offence at the slightest thing, and  rather that tell the person concerned that they don't appreciate their language and to please not use it around them,would rather go to management.This may have been done of course,but on the face of  the culture there seems quite toxic and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more issues reported from there.

Keith Iddon ● 3d

I know exactly how tribunals work. Have been involved in a few. But you need to make up your mind. You tell people to read the article on the leader page of this site and when I quote paragraphs from the article you suggest that the views of the journalist are nuanced. Bottom line is that the man shouldn’t have been sacked and he won his case. They now just need to agree on compensation.

Steve Taylor ● 3d

Agree Andrew, they didn’t follow employment law procedure which is pretty shocking and I am sure a firm word explaining the complaints made against him would have done the job so a written warning. He has done an incredible job over the years and saved many lives and probably trained many others. He was also due to retire so the case could have been managed more sensitively and respectfully.

Jayne Thorburn ● 3d

I'm getting the impression you don't understand how employment tribunals work. They are not the same as a criminal court and the objective is not to prove guilt or innocence but to determine if employment law was properly followed. If you are going to have an unnuanced view of what happened here you really need to look at the full judgement rather than developing a hot take based on biased media reports.

Andrew OSullivan ● 4d

“ the RNLI had failed to provide him with sufficient detail about the allegations or clarify the specific breaches of conduct. The tribunal found that the disciplinary process lacked fairness and transparency, concluding that Mr Monroe had been both unfairly and wrongfully dismissed although a claim of age discrimination was not upheld.The tribunal noted that Mr Monroe had no prior disciplinary record and had received positive performance reviews, including praise for his reliability and leadership. A remedy hearing to determine compensation is scheduled for 15 December 2025.“

Steve Taylor ● 4d

Despite what is being suggested in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, Glen Monroe wasn't sacked for complaining about ULEZ. Read the more balanced coverage on this site or, better still, have a look at the tribunal's ruling which is in the public domain. The judgement does not exonerate him from the charges of making racist, homophobic and sexist comments but says that the RNLI did not follow proper procedures when they sacked him. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 4d

Summary dismissal without should only be applied in extreme circumstances. Fraud, vandalism, sexual misconduct, violence, being under the influence at work. Even then due process is recommended. Behaviour that might be construed as sexist or racist could definitely lead to dismissal but more likely a warning at the first stage. Complaining about the Mayors transport policies and their impact is something many people are doing and might lead to a huge number of people being dismissed from their jobs if it became a criteria for dismissal.

Jackie Elton ● 4d

The end result was that he is guilty of nothing because he was found to have been in unfairly dismissed. I am wondering how many will cancel their donations  to RLNI knowing that the organisation is wasting money on nonsensical allegations.

Steve Taylor ● 4d

Sounds like he's a victim of being a proper bloke; and some of the female RNLI rescuers can be a bit butch, if you know what I mean, and easily offended. I upset one of them once over something trivial when I was paddling with Chiswick Pier Canoe Club..

Michael Brown ● 4d

Indeed - would have been a far better outcome

Andrew Jones ● 5d

Shame that someone with years of previously unblemished service could not have been taken to one side years ago by his line manager and told to behave in a more professional manner around colleagues.He should have realised the world has changed since he started there and that the expectations from others were also different,and if he didn't realise he should have been told in no uncertain terms.

Keith Iddon ● 5d

The story is now on the front page. It doesn't seem that anybody emerges with much credit in this episode and it has been very upsetting for people at the station. Perhaps in retrospect he should have been quietly advised to retire.

Alison Howard ● 5d

I wasn't asked to pay nor do I subscribe. Maybe Chiswick W4 will pick this up.

Adrian Irving ● 5d

Bit difficult when the article is behind a paywall.

Richard Greenhough ● 5d