Sacked shipmaster whose boat ran aground in the Humber wins compensation

An Employment Tribunal ruled Svitzer Maritime Ltd unfairly dismissed Mr S Brown following the grounding near Saltend in August 2020, claiming he had falsified a report about it.

Employment Judge Fenny ruled the master’s later denial of a grounding, despite earlier attempts to file near miss reports, did not breach trust significantly enough to count as gross misconduct.

But the tribunal also found he had shown a lack of care and attention when reporting the grounding and lacked remorse during an internal company investigation.

The tribunal ordered Mr Brown’s employer to pay out over the dismissal but reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 40 per cent, recognising he bore some blame.

The tribunal, held in February, heard Mr Brown’s vessel Stanford briefly ran aground on mud or sand in shallows known as the Hebbles, between Saltend and the River Hull.

Mr Brown began working as a mate for the company in 2005 and was promoted to master in 2018. But he was temporarily demoted twice and went through training courses to be reinstated.

Mr Brown and a crew totalling five managed to get Stanford off the shallows after its grounding at around 7pm, with no damage to the vessel.

The master first tried to report the incident at 8.50pm, after they docked in Hull, in line with company policy and merchant shipping regulations.

He categorised his first report as a near miss, submitting a phone picture of a cursor over the place on the boat’s navigational chart where he believed the grounding happened.

But under maritime law it is a criminal offence to fail to properly report a grounding without reasonable cause, regardless of the circumstances.

The law states that a vessel has grounded if it has had contact with the river bed, no matter the amount of time or the extent of resulting damage.

Mr Brown was unable to submit his report because of a poor internet connection, so it was left in progress on the company’s system.

The first report listed the event as asset damage, but a second near miss report flled out around 9.20pm put near asset damage.

In the report, the master stated the boat stopped before he and the crew realised they had run around, before getting underway again and carrying on with their job.

But neither of the reports were submitted and remained in progress.

They were found in the system by a company manager two days later and an internal investigation launched but Mr Brown was not suspended.

The master suggested at points that there had been a grounding but at other points in the hearings he said he could not be sure.

A company letter to him stated no complete report had been filled and the incident and the port manager and harbour authority had not been informed.

Port Manager Mr Hill, chair of disciplinary hearings which followed the investigation, believed Mr Brown began denying the grounding after meetings with him in October.

Mr Brown was told that month his actions may be regarded as serious misconduct but he was not at risk of being dismissed.

Mr Hill began gathering more evidence, including interviewing crew members, and established there was a grounding but began believing the master had falsified reports to downplay its seriousness.

But the tribunal ruled that while Mr Brown had lacked care and attention in his handling of the incident, especially given his training, a serious breach of trust could not be proved.

Employment Judge Fenny stated in his ruling that if he had wanted to cover up the grounding he could have not reported the incident at all.

But the judge stated he did not understand why Mr Brown had reported a grounding in his report rather than saying he was not sure given his later uncertainty.

The ruling stated that on reflection the master was not sure whether it was a grounding or near miss.

Employment Judge Fenny stated: “I am satisfied that the claimant’s conduct in this regard, combined with his failure to properly submit the form on HMS and his lack of contrition during the disciplinary process, both contributed to his dismissal and was blameworthy and culpable.

"In my view the compensation award reduction reflects the equity that the Respondent should share the majority of blame for the unfairness of the dismissal but that the Claimant’s conduct was also a substantial factor.”