A veteran firefighter who was sacked for throwing away a disabled YouTuber's phone was unfairly dismissed, a tribunal has heard.
John Linden, who was station manager and worked for Norfolk Fire Service for 32 years, was fired following an altercation with blogger Jimmy Evans in June 2023.
The former firefighter had been fighting a blaze near the banks of the Great Ouse in King's Lynn when he was caught on camera appearing to throw the Youtuber's phone over a hedge.
Mr Evans, who uses a wheelchair and mobility buggy, had been at the scene of the fire in Hardings Pit.
A video filmed by Mr Evans, a self-styled journalist, showed the pair get into a verbal argument.
The Youtube blogger can he heard saying 'I'm press, mate' and that he was 'legally allowed to do it' as the fire chief approached him.
Mr Linden told him that he was 'putting himself in danger' and urged him to leave
Mr Evans asserted he was entitled to stay where he was - about 100m away from the fire itself - before Mr Linton appeared to snatch his phone.
Tensions boiled over as the pair disagreed and Mr Evans accused the fire chief of taking his phone before lobbing it over the hedge and walking away.
It led to an investigation and a disciplinary hearing that resulted in Mr Linden being fired for misconduct.
At an employment tribunal last month, Mr Linden - who had served for 32 years - argued he had been unfairly dismissed by Norfolk Fire Service.
Despite his three other complaints being dismissed, the tribunal ruled that he had been unfairly sacked due to 'failures' in the force's procedures.
The firefighter took his case to a tribunal and has now won a claim of unfair dismissal.
At the tribunal, he claimed he was discriminated against on account of his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis.
He told the hearing he had suffered from PTSD after years of physical abuse as a child and following traumatic incidents he had dealt with while serving as a firefighter.
Other claims against the fire service include that it failed to make suitable adjustments and breached his contract.
The former firefighter had been attending a blaze when he got embroiled in an altercation with Mr Evans, who was filming for his YouTube channel.
Norwich Magistrates' Court, where the hearing was held, was told the firefighter claimed his diagnosis led him to react in a 'heightened manner' towards Mr Evans, who produces videos under the name of Wheelz Media.
Mr Linden said he approached Mr Evans, warning him not to go any closer to the fire due to the risk to his safety.
But Mr Evans refused and 'became aggressive', the tribunal was told.
What followed was a 'split-second' reaction by Mr Linden, who says he deflected Mr Evans’ swinging arm while still seated in his mobility buggy, which resulted in his phone being lost.
Mr Evans complained about Mr Linden’s behaviour to the Norfolk fire department and said that he was not able to find his phone, despite returning to the site with his girlfriend to look for it.
The chief fire officer told Mr Evans that he would be compensated for the loss of his phone, a total of £300, and an internal investigation would take place.
The investigation was conducted by Peter Rowe and took two months to complete.
In August 2023, Mr Linden was sacked for gross misconduct.
Tensions between the pair boiled over and Mr Evans accused the fire chief of taking his phone before lobbing it over the hedge and walking away.
It was heard that Mr Evans - who runs a channel called Wheelz Media - was known to the fire department, and Mr Linden knew him to be 'challenging and abusive'.
Employment Judge Andrew Spencer said: 'In recent years, [Mr Linden] and his work colleagues have had to deal with self-proclaimed social media 'auditors'.
'These individuals attend sites and public spaces to film emergency workers, often uploading the content to social media platforms.'
'Some aim to generate online content by behaving aggressively and obstructively, seeking to capture negative responses with a view to posting this online.'
'It is possible to monetise the results through social media channels such as YouTube.'
Gus Baker, an expert barrister in employment and discrimination law representing Norfolk Fire Service, argued Mr Linden’s reaction would have been a ‘normal’ response to Mr Evans’ behaviour and not driven by his PTSD.
He argued that anyone watching the video would find Mr Linden’s version of events ‘incredible and incapable of belief.’
Mr Baker said: ‘You snatched his phone while he was responding to you.’
The video was key to Mr Linden’s dismissal.
Mr Evans describes his online blogging company as ‘auditing done on wheels’.
Mr Evans said: ‘I don’t feel that his PTSD has anything to do with what happened that day.’
‘Yes, he may have PTSD from a number of different types of incidents and I agree with that.’
‘But I don’t think that’s the reason why he kicked off at me.’
‘I never wanted the guy fired, I just wanted an apology from him.’
‘All of this was about the fact he took my phone without my consent and threw it into a bush.’
Mr Evans said he had previously had a good relationship with the fire service and claimed he had already spoken with another officer at the scene.
Explaining how Mr Evans’ phone ended up over a nearby hedge, Mr Linden said he had reacted in a ‘split second’ to deflect the man’s swinging arm which resulted in the phone being lost.
However, the tribunal heard that Mr Evans, who did not giving evidence at the hearing but had requested to, was known to be confrontational prior to the King's Lynn incident.
Judge Spencer found there were procedural failures during the investigation that led to Mr Linden being unfairly dismissed.
He said the investigation needed to be more 'rigorous' for a potentially 'career-ending decision'.
Judge Spencer said that the police fire chief had directed Mr Rowe not to interview members of the crew who could have been witnesses to the incident.
Referring to an email in which the fire chief made the request, the judge said: 'This was inappropriate - it amounted to a clear instruction to Mr Rowe not to interview potential witnesses to take statements from them.'
'It sought to restrict the scope of the investigation. Mr Rowe complied with this. He did not interview the witnesses or take formal statements from them.'
'It was inappropriate for the chief fire officer to be giving that instruction and to interfere with the scope of the investigation.'
Mr Evans was also not asked for the full footage of the incident, and he left out the before and after of the incident, even though they had previously discussed the issue before Mr Linden threw his phone.
Judge Spencer said: 'Mr Evans should have been asked to provide the full version of his footage so that the 'before and after' parts of the incident were available.'
'[Norfolk Fire Service] knew that there were other parts of the incident which had been filmed and which had not been posted online.'
'It was not difficult to infer from this that the footage may not show Mr Evans in a positive light and might assist [Mr Linden's] case. This footage should have been requested.'
Judge Spencer said that no medical evidence was sought to establish if Mr Linden’s PTSD was a ‘contributory factor’ to the incident.
He said: ‘Finding the dismissal to be unfair on procedural grounds requires us to conclude that no reasonable employer could have followed this process. Perfection is not required.
‘However, against that, one can also argue that the fact that this was a potentially career-ending decision is such that a reasonable employer would be expected to be more rigorous.
‘We concluded that there are so many procedural failures in this case that the procedure followed by [fire service] is outside the band of reasonable responses.
The dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds.'
Mr Linden also unsuccessfully sued the Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service for disability discrimination, failure to make accommodations, and breach of contract.
Speaking after the tribunal Mr Linden said he had lost 'more than a job' when he was sacked from the fire service.
He said: 'I had worked very hard throughout my career. I ended up having PTSD and I have faced a lot of aggressive people.
'That particular person had caused issued to us before and had caused issues to the police before.'
'There was the aggression, just how dynamic it was. It was in a split second that he got aggressive with me and I lost a 32 year career.'
Mr Linden said Mr Evans had threatened a colleague previously and he had made sure to notify his staff about it.
He said that fire officers are not trained in how to deal with 'difficult people'.
He said the incident had a 'profound effect' and 'shook him up'.
Mr Linden said Mr Evans had threatened a colleague previously and had 'caused issues' with the service in past
He said: 'I put so much into the force. I had done a lot of high profile stuff; won several commendations.
'It is sad that I have been let down. It has affected me; it has affected my family. I don't think I have had a good nights sleep in two years really.'
Speaking after the tribunal, Mr Evans said: 'I know everyone is blaming me for him losing his job. But he made his mind up to take my phone and if you watch the video you will see the phone go over the edge.'
Judge Spencer ruled that though Mr Linden’s breach of contract, unfavourable treatment and failure to make reasonable adjustments claims all failed, his unfair dismissal claim was well-founded.
He said: ‘There are so many procedural failures in this case that the procedure followed by the respondent is outside the band of reasonable responses,’ he said.
‘The dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds. The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds on these grounds.’