Date
05 November 2025Updated
05 November 2025
3 min read
Early coverage framed this as a political row about free speech: “an RNLI helmsman dismissed for calling the Mayor of London a terrorist.” It sounded like culture-war rage bait. However, when the Employment Tribunal got hold of it, the picture shifted. The case of Monroe v RNLI is not about whether the comment was acceptable (it was not). It was about whether the RNLI followed its own rules. It had not. That failure, where politics was prioritised over process, is why the RNLI lost.
This case is an important lesson for both employers and employees because it shows that, no matter how charged the headlines are, tribunals judge the process. The outcome turns on fairness, evidence, and how the rules are applied.
Allegations Require Precision
In law, precision is everything. Disputes between employees and employers are often emotional, and the aggrieved party, usually the employee, can start to see every interaction as an attack. That kind of heat clouds judgment and drags the argument into every possible grievance. The cold reality is that courts and tribunals deal only in evidence. Even if a claim feels true, it will fail unless the facts can be proved.
So, when allegations hinge on words spoken, as they often do, employees must be able to pin down exactly what was alleged, what was said or done, when it happened, and who witnessed it. Whether responding to a grievance or a claim form, it is not the employer’s job to make sense of incoherent accusations. They do, however, need to gather the facts methodically, document every step, and assess the evidence.
Did the RNLI do that?
No. Emphatically not. The Tribunal found that Mr Monroe was not given full particulars of the allegations. It even called it “remarkable” that he had been told the allegations amounted to gross misconduct, yet the specifics were not made clear.
The point is this. If you are seeking to dismiss someone for gross misconduct, you need proof, and you need to give the employee enough information to defend themselves properly. Employers can be frustrated with staff or feel pressure to act because of office politicking. The truth is that an Employment Tribunal does not care how you feel. It cares that you have followed a fair process, that your evidence is exact, and that you come across as a credible party in the proceedings.
The Internal Process Must be Fair and Impartial
Once the allegations are clear, the next step is to run a process that is genuinely fair and impartial. This is where many employers stumble. Without naming names, some managers are arrogant enough to think the rules do not apply to them. They assume that holding authority or acting out of a sense of righteousness protects them. It does not. Others are simply careless, even though the basic requirements for a fair process are freely available on the Acas website. That carelessness is what puts a business at risk.
The starting point is to investigate. The clue is in the title: gather facts, do not assume guilt. In Monroe v RNLI, the Tribunal found that the initial interview questions gave the impression the investigator had already made up their mind. That early bias, or even the perception of it, was enough to make the process unsafe. A fair investigation is evidence-led, and anything less contaminates the outcome. It is just common sense.
Internal policies exist for a reason. They maintain order and ensure that grievances and disciplinaries are handled with the same rigour and clarity that a judge would expect in court. The RNLI’s disciplinary policy promised written particulars, a fair hearing, and the right to accompaniment. The Tribunal found those standards were not met and that Mr Monroe was placed at a significant disadvantage. If you set workplace rules, follow them.
Departing from your own process without a clear, documented reason only makes you look reckless when the scrutiny comes. In this case, the RNLI’s public stance on “unacceptable communications” was well known and raised expectations. If your organisation makes “zero tolerance” commitments, your internal processes must live up to that promise. The RNLI might have thought it was being admirable by addressing the allegation as harshly as it did. And, while reputation and culture are important, they do not override the fundamentals of fairness.
What Employers Should Take Away
The Monroe v RNLI decision proves a simple truth: what matters in employment law is clarity, fairness, and evidence. Those are what a claimant and a respondent are assessed on in front of a judge. Tribunals do not get distracted by headlines or emotion. They look at the evidence and the method. If that method is flawed, even the strongest justification for dismissal can fall apart.
If your organisation is dealing with sensitive conduct or reputational risk, don’t guess the process. Get it right from the start. Our team at Neathouse Partners can review, train, or guide you through investigations that will hold up under tribunal scrutiny.
