A Salvation Army worker responsible for supporting refugees was lawfully dismissed after he made inflammatory comments suggesting migrants should be sent back “on a boat”, an employment tribunal has ruled.
The court concluded that the charity was entitled to dismiss 56-year-old Charles Markie after he made comments while working at Strathmore Lodge, a Salvation Army-run hostel in Dundee that housed refugees and migrants.
Mr Markie, who had worked for the organization for almost 20 years, was fired in March 2024 following comments he made to colleagues. The court heard he said there would be “no housing shortage if we didn’t take in 150 refugees”, adding that they should be “sent back on a bloody boat”.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the comments went beyond unreasonable workplace frustration and constituted gross misconduct, particularly given the nature of Mr Markie’s role and his employer’s values.
The court concluded that the statements were inflammatory, clearly posed a reputational risk, and were fundamentally inconsistent with the mission and purpose of The Salvation Army, which supports vulnerable people and communities without discrimination.
Commenting on the ruling, Jainika Patel, employment lawyer at Freeths, said the case shows that employers have the right to draw a clear line.
“There are many cases where employees make inappropriate but harmless comments, whether off the cuff or out of frustration, and which do not warrant disciplinary action,” she said. “However, the court found that this case was not one of them.”
Patel added that the plaintiff’s comments were considered particularly serious given his role and the organization’s values.
“The comments were found to be inflammatory and posed a real risk to the employer’s reputation. It was reasonable to classify them as gross misconduct, given that the plaintiff worked for an organization whose aim is to provide help and support without discrimination,” she said.
The ruling reinforces the principle that employers are entitled to take into account reputational risk, the values of the organization and the nature of an employee’s role when deciding on disciplinary sanctions.
Patel noted that roles involving vulnerable groups or where there is a high level of public trust are held to higher standards of conduct and that misconduct of this type is likely to be treated more seriously than in other workplace contexts.
