Littlehampton harbourmaster loses appeal against being sacked

An employment tribunal has rejected Mr Hitchcock’s claim against the board of unfair dismissal, following two days of hearings in Southampton.

Mr Hitchcock was originally suspended by the board in November, 2009, after returning from holiday, and subsequently dismissed following a disciplinary hearing the following February.

Allegations made against him by his former colleague, deputy harbourmaster Will Barker, in an exit interview as he left to take up a new post with the Shoreham Port Authority, led to the board’s then clerk, Nigel Croad, launching an investigation.

That led, in turn, to the disciplinary hearing in February, 2010, conducted by harbour board vice-chairman Robert Boyce, who decided that two of the allegations made against Mr Hitchcock amounted to gross misconduct.

One of these involved the harbourmaster taking out a school party in the board’s workboat, Windsong, without authority or proper safety procedures. The boat was certified to carry six people, but Mr Hitchcock took out his partner and eight people who had won the boat trip as a prize in a school’s raffle.

None of the passengers in the boat were wearing lifejackets, and the life raft on the boat was capable of carrying no more than six people.

The second serious allegation concerned a health and safety meeting the harbourmaster said had taken place, but, in fact, was never held.

Mr Boyce concluded that both matters were so serious that dismissal was the appropriate penalty, the tribunal heard.

A subsequent appeal to the board was held the following month, and Mr Hitchcock’s dismissal was confirmed.

In a letter appealing against his dismissal following the February disciplinary hearing, Mr Hitchcock claimed Mr Boyce did not have the authority to dismiss him, expressed the view that the penalty was harsh, after nine years of “exemplary” service, and alleged the investigation was biased and that board chairman Graham Tyler had a personal interest in removing him from office.

In a submission to the tribunal, Mr Hitchcock also alleged that the real reason for his dismissal was “money” - Mr Boyce’s company owned a large tract of land adjacent to the river and the suggestion was that his company would gain if a regeneration plan earmarked the land for residential development.

However, in its conclusions, the tribunal ruled out any monetary motivation on Mr Boyce’s part, and pointed out that had an incident occurred during the trip on the workboat, the board would have been accountable for matters relating to health and safety.

Speaking this week, Mr Hitchcock said he would be meeting with his counsel tomorrow (Friday) to consider an appeal against the tribunal’s decision.

Mr Boyce said he, personally, denied Mr Hitchcock’s claim that he had been motivated by business interests in making his decision at the disciplinary hearing.