Forklift Driver Triumphs in Unfair Dismissal Claim After Euthanising Injured Deer
An employment tribunal has ruled in favour of a worker who was dismissed for performing a mercy killing on a severely injured deer at his workplace. Anthony Brown, a forklift driver and shift leader at AB Agri in Enstone, Oxfordshire, successfully sued his employer for unfair dismissal after being fired for what the company described as an illegal and barbaric act.
Background and Incident Details
Mr Brown, who began working for AB Agri in 1999, had prior professional experience as a humane animal killer, often referred to as a knackerman, where he was routinely called to euthanise animals injured on roads. In January 2024, he discovered a deer lying near a fence on the company's site, visibly distressed with facial damage and gasping for breath. Assessing the situation, he concluded the animal was in significant distress and near death, leading him to cut its throat to prevent further suffering, resulting in immediate death.
Employer's Response and Disciplinary Process
Following the incident, AB Agri suspended Mr Brown, citing concerns over potential illegality under the Deer Act 1991. During a disciplinary hearing, the company claimed his actions were illegal, barbaric, and extreme, despite failing to specify which part of the Act was violated. Operations manager Alison Campbell interviewed Mr Brown, where he revealed he had performed similar mercy killings on two previous occasions at work, including after a colleague hit a deer with a car and when a cat was maimed in a lorry.
- The tribunal found AB Agri did not adequately investigate the legality of Mr Brown's actions, relying on a section of the Deer Act related to poaching without proper justification.
- Employment Judge Grahame Anderson noted the company retrofitted its justification for dismissal after realising the act might not be illegal.
- Mr Brown was described as rational and deeply caring about animal welfare, with his decision based on preventing prolonged suffering.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The tribunal highlighted that AB Agri, while advocating for animal welfare, incorrectly assumed killing an animal was inherently contrary to welfare. Another operations manager, Andrew Malone, admitted he might have acted similarly but refrained due to job scope. The judge emphasised that Mr Brown's experience and compassionate judgement justified his actions, as waiting for authorities like the RSPCA would have only extended the animal's agony.
Outcome and Compensation
The virtual Cambridge employment tribunal ruled the dismissal unfair, with Mr Brown now eligible for compensation, the amount to be determined later this year. This case underscores the complexities of workplace ethics, animal welfare laws, and employee rights in situations involving emergency interventions.
