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 ● 26d42 Comments
I hope he gets a decent pay out because this has been a quite high profile case and no doubt will do his future prospects any good at all.RNLI might think more about adhering to good practise from now on.
Keith Iddon ● 17d
I'll correct myself now! Employment Tribunals can order re-instatement but reading the report, I can't imagine in this case the Tribunal would order re-instatement, even if Glen asked to be re-instated.
Andrew Jones ● 17d
Anyone can make a demand I suppose, but even though the dismissal was unfair, I can't imagine for one second that the RNLI could be made to re-employ him.There will be compensation paid for the unfair dismissal, but as age discrimination was specifically ruled out as a reason for the unfair dismissal, I expect the compensation will be at the lower end of the scale, perhaps somewhere between £10-20k?
The tribunal could order reinstatement but given the wording of the judgement this seems highly unlikely. If it were to happen, the risk for Mr Monroe would be that he might find himself in a position where he gets sacked correctly later on and he ends up with nothing. The RNLI would probably reinvestigate the complaints and the chances are he would effectively be on a final written warning on his return.
Jeremy Parkinson ● 17d
As he was unfairly dismissed, could he not demand to be reinstated?
Steve Taylor ● 17d
'Whistleblowers shouldn't have to waive anonymity for their evidence to be admissable.'Their evidence was considered but evidence from a named individual may have had extra weight."To not be informed beforehand of all that would be brought up at a meeting where a possible outcome was summary dismissal meant the dismissal was inevitably going to be unfair"Absolutely right. This leave three possibilities 1) the HR function at the charity was inexperienced and or incompetent 2) the charity decided that an example needed to be made after having only just made a public statement on bullying 3) the RNLI took a view that Mr Monroe had to be removed even if due process had not been followed, as his presence was compromising the effectiveness of the station.
Whistleblowers shouldn't have to waive anonymity for their evidence to be admissable.To not be informed beforehand of all that would be brought up at a meeting where a possible outcome was summary dismissal meant the dismissal was inevitably going to be unfair.
Andrew Jones ● 18d
That was the same conclusion I reached after going through the report. Perhaps the broader context is important here - the RNLI had already had a string of complaints about bullying and sexism and was being looked at by the Charity Commission. The person investigating the problems at Chiswick did seem to do their best to get to the bottom of it but the unwillingness of whistleblowers to waive anonymity perhaps weakened the overall case. There probably would have been consequences just as negative if Glen Monroe had been allowed to keep his job so they were damned either way.
Jeremy Parkinson ● 18d
Having looked through the 53 pages of the tribunal ruling, it's clear that the appropriate action should have been for the RNLI to give Glen Monroe a final written warning about his behaviour.It appears that the person who summararily dismissed Glen Monroe intended to do this prior to the hearing, but formed an opinion that his behaviour wouldn't change.Tribunal decision was the correct one, from what I can see.
“ A London Central Employment Tribunal ruled that Glen Monroe, a veteran lifeboat commander at the Chiswick RNLI station, was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed.”
Steve Taylor ● 18d
Agreed, Tony. Michael's comments are part of the problem but he knows that.Snide, homophobic, misogynistic comments such as his perpetuate the mentality that all is fine. Cue the response that I'm missing the humor and to get a grip or some such thing.
David Lesniak ● 18d
The tribunal didn't conclude that he was unjustifiably sacked but rather that his sacking was unfair because proper procedure wasn't followed. Whether it was unjustifiable is more subjective and I know people who are much more familiar with the circumstances than some of the most confident commentators on here, disagree on this question. People perhaps should avoid pronouncements which are based less on knowledge of this case and more on preconceived ideas and click bait reporting.
Alison Howard ● 19d
'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..'I know this Michael Brown is a conspiracy theory nut job but theres no place for this rubbish. Time to move into the current century Brown or even the 20th would be a start
Tony Mansell ● 19d
We never said he wasn't justifiably sacked, just how someone's personality can land them in big trouble.
Janice Evans ● 19d
Wallace was justifiably sacked because of his behaviour towards women. He was in a very high paid job and I understand he is now seeking compensation. The RNLI guy wasn’t justifiably sacked, as found by the Tribunal. His justified compensation is being determined.
Steve Taylor ● 19d
Sadly, Peter, no.The US vice-president just deployed the same excuse in response to some bro-y type crap about two/three weeks ago. It is a controlling behavior and we've seen it repeatedly attempted here on this forum over the years. An evasive maneuver to shift focus and responsibility anywhere but where it should be.
David Lesniak ● 19d
It will have to be a warning to men over 50 😉
Yes, I never watched it but was aware of his cheeky personality and hesee no wrong in it.
I feel sorry for Greg Wallace as I assume he was particularly recruited for his ‘cheeky chappy’ persona. He was presumably encouraged to display it to the full by the production company, at the expense of any others on the team who might have found it offensive. It wasn’t until some women celebrity contestants objected and called it out for what it was that Wallace was removed from the show, with his understandable ‘Whad I say?!’ response.
Peter Evans ● 19d
Personally, suppose because I'm not easily offended, that sort of thing never offended me, referring to Greg an ex greengrocer, they were the worst at that sort of humour but it was just accepted as a joke. See what you mean though, these days it can be used in the wrong way but I think older generation are not aware they are offending anyone.
Janice Evans ● 20d
So often ‘humour’ is a used as a way of making rudeness, vulgarity, mysogyny, and racism, as well as controlling behaviour, acceptable. Except we call it irony, sarcasm, innuendo or banter. Is this just a ‘British’ thing?
Peter Evans ● 20d
It seems we can no longer have a sense of humour, Greg comes to mind.
“ 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 ● 21d
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 ● 21d
'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 ● 21d
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 ● 23d
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 ● 23d
Totally agree. Hopefully he will get good compensation for being unfairly dismissed even if Andrew OSullivan doesn’t understand how tribunals work.
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 ● 23d
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.
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 ● 24d
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 ● 24d
“ 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 ● 24d
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.
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 ● 24d
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.
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 ● 25d
Indeed - would have been a far better outcome
Andrew Jones ● 25d
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 ● 25d
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 ● 25d
I wasn't asked to pay nor do I subscribe. Maybe Chiswick W4 will pick this up.
Adrian Irving ● 26d
Bit difficult when the article is behind a paywall.
Richard Greenhough ● 26d