Drunk firefighters fired for ‘urinating on floor of Chinese takeaway and racially abusing staff’ win wrongful termination lawsuit

Two firefighters who were fired after being accused of urinating on the floor of a Chinese takeaway restaurant and racially abusing staff are set to receive compensation after successfully filing a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

Gareth Hancock and Daniel Phillips were summoned to meetings with bosses after the restaurant owner complained that one of them had also tried to start a fight, an employment tribunal was told.

The couple admitted to drinking between six and eight pints before arriving to get food.

After an investigator visited the restaurant and viewed CCTV footage of the incident, they were both fired for serious misconduct.

They now face damages after a judge ruled the investigation and process in which they were fired was “unfair”.

The firefighters worked for South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, with Mr Hancock starting in 2014 and Mr Phillips starting in February 2004 – before both were made redundant in August 2023.

At the time they were both based at Eddw Vale Fire Station.

The hearing in Cardiff heard that in June 2023 the two men and several others went to Yumee’s Chinese Takeaway to order food.

The group had been drinking in a local pub before the takeaway meal, of which Mr Hancock admitted he had drunk “about eight pints” while Mr Phillips estimated he had drunk “six or seven”.

The next day, the fire department received a complaint from the owners of the takeaway shop regarding their behaviour.

They claimed Mr Hancock urinated on the floor of the takeaway and made “racist comments towards the takeaway owners and members of their family”, before trying to start a fight.

The alleged comments concerned rice, the hearing heard.

It was understood the owners knew the people involved were firefighters because they had used a Blue Light card to get a discount and one of the men waiting outside was in the fire engine.

Their manager went to the restaurant where he watched CCTV of the incident, which was also reported to police.

Following an initial investigation, Mr Hancock and Mr Phillips were suspended along with two colleagues who were also at the scene.

Mr Hancock was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, indecent exposure and racial aggravation but released on bail.

In June 2023, they were both questioned even though neither had been “allowed” to view the CCTV footage.

An investigation report from July 2023, naming the allegations Mr Hancock faced and inviting him to a disciplinary meeting in August.

At the meeting, a panel concluded that all four allegations had been proven, that his actions constituted serious misconduct and he was dismissed without notice.

It was understood that no reason was given other than that they discovered the allegations had occurred.

In a letter received a week later, Mr Hancock was given explanations “of a somewhat superficial nature”.

He appealed the decision, but it was upheld.

Mr Phillips was also investigated for racial abuse of staff.

However, when he himself was cleared of racism, it was found that there was “material to the case” in his reaction to the racial abuse – after it was discovered that he had “laughed at his colleague’s behaviour” and filmed it on his phone.

In August 2023, Mr Phillips was invited to a disciplinary hearing chaired by the same panel that chaired Mr Hancock’s hearing.

At the meeting they concluded that the allegations were proven, that he had heard the “rice comments” made by Mr Hancock and also dismissed him for gross misconduct.

He appealed the decision, but was also unsuccessful.

It was understood that during the appeal proceedings, the findings and decisions of the original panel were upheld, without explanation as to how it had reached “its various conclusions”.

Employment judge Stephen Povey said: “In my view there were significant and fundamental failings in the way in which (the fire service) conducted and determined the disciplinary proceedings against both (men).”

He said the disciplinary committee had therefore “already decided” that Mr Hancock was guilty, which then placed Mr Phillips at a “disadvantage and led the committee to approach his case with a partially closed mind”.

“In my view there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the (firefighters’) belief that (Mr Hancock) had urinated, made racist comments or attempted to provoke a fight, as alleged, was reasonable,” he said.

He said the initial investigation was “reasonable and adequate” but added: “However, the manner in which (the fire service) subsequently investigated and determined these allegations was flawed.”

He also said Mr Phillips’ sacking was “not fundamentally right”.

Their compensation will be decided later.