Damien Burke v The Harrow Club: EAT upholds dismissal over unauthorised first aid

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an Employment Tribunal's finding that a long serving youth worker was fairly dismissed after he gave an injured teenager a tissue to wipe away blood, ruling that this could properly be treated as unauthorised first aid.

Damien Burke had worked for the youth charity The Harrow Club for at least thirteen years before his dismissal in March 2024. The case arose from an incident on the evening of 10 July 2023, when two young people at the charity's Old Oak club, referred to in the proceedings as A and B, became involved in an altercation that unfolded in three stages. Burke intervened successfully during the first two stages, one of which was captured on CCTV, but did not witness a third stage that took place away from the premises, during which A was punched in the face and lost a tooth.

When A returned to the club, Burke, in the presence of his manager and a qualified first aider, gave him a tissue to wipe away blood and helped him look outside for the missing tooth. Following police and safeguarding investigations, the charity's joint chief executive launched an internal disciplinary process. Burke was ultimately dismissed for three reasons: failing to follow the charity's safeguarding reporting procedure, administering first aid without training or authorisation while a qualified first aider was present, and giving a dishonest initial account of events that omitted A's return to the club altogether.

The Employment Tribunal, in a judgement given by Employment Judge Glennie, dismissed Burke's unfair dismissal claim, finding that the charity had a genuine and reasonably held belief in all three matters, that no procedural failings had occurred, and that dismissal fell within the range of responses open to a reasonable employer, notwithstanding Burke's long service.

On appeal to the EAT, only one ground was permitted to proceed, challenging the tribunal's conclusion that giving a tissue to wipe blood amounted to first aid at all. His Honour Judge James Tayler, sitting as Deputy President, noted that the tribunal had not expressly analysed whether the three matters relied upon amounted to a composite reason for dismissal or separate reasons requiring identification of a principal one, but proceeded on the basis that they had been treated, uncontroversially, as forming a single composite reason connected to how Burke responded to the incident. This meant the appeal was not academic, since a flaw in the first aid finding could, in principle, undermine the fairness of the dismissal as a whole.

On the substance, the judgement held there was no error of law. The tribunal had been entitled to find that Burke's actions, given his knowledge that A had lost a tooth and the presence of an available qualified first aider, amounted to first aid administered without authorisation, and that the charity was entitled to treat inadequate or inappropriate first aid involving a minor as a serious matter. The tribunal's conclusion could not be described as perverse.

The judgement also offered a wider review of the case law on identifying the reason for dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, drawing on authorities including Smith v Glasgow District Council and Croydon Health Services NHS Trust v Beatt, and emphasising that tribunals must identify the actual factual reason, whether single, composite or principal among several, before assessing fairness.

The appeal was dismissed.