In the case of Mr. J Hamilton v North East Lincolnshire Council Mr Jack Hamilton was dismissed from Grimsby Crematorium after leaving some of a pet’s ashes in the cremator for a fortnight before another cremation took place. He was also found to have deliberately pushed the pet remains to the back of the cremator in an apparent attempt to conceal this.
Mr Jack Hamilton denied failing to follow the correct procedure to de-ash the cremator. Mr Hamilton also denied that he had deliberately concealed pet ashes from at least a previous cremation by putting it to the back of the cremator.
But the tribunal’s judgment found that there was more than sufficient evidence for the council to decide he had been responsible for failure to de-ash and that remains were deliberately pushed to the back of the cremator.
The core matters behind his dismissal were found by the tribunal to potentially cause “serious reputational damage” to the council and could have risked Grimsby Crematorium losing its licence for pet cremations. The failure to de-ash the pet remains from the cremator was not the only allegation made about Mr Hamilton’s conduct and performance as an employee.
He had not followed health and safety procedures or worn the crematorium’s corporate uniform and been told about this before. He also arrived to some shifts late and left some early, leading to a user complaint of the crematorium not being open as advertised. This tied into the fraudulent claiming of overtime pay, with Mr Hamilton on certain shifts not logging his late arrival or early departure.
He was alleged on one occasion to have spilt cremated pet remains and left them on the floor. He also allegedly disputed the removal of floral tributes from the crematorium garden. On this latter allegation, Mr Hamilton said he could not remember doing so, but he may have challenged as “banter”.
The employment tribunal, held in September, and whose judgement was finalised and published earlier this month concluded that the claimant’s conduct was a fair reason for his dismissal.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
