Youth worker sacked after giving injured child tissue in health and safety breach

A “genuinely committed” worker was sacked from a youth club after handing a wet tissue to an injured child in breach of health and safety rules.

Damien Burke was dismissed from his position of 13 years at a branch of the Harrow Club, a youth organisation set up in 1883 by Old Harrowians as part of the 'school mission' movement to aid disadvantaged children, in 2024.

Mr Burke was "indignant" after being accused of breaching health and safety rules by giving a teenager who had been in a fight a tissue to wipe dried blood off his face.

Mr Burke, 45, who lives on an estate close to the Harrow Club's Old Oak branch in East Acton and also coached a trophy winning youth football team, was hauled up over disciplinary charges stemming from a brawl between two youths in 2023.

His bosses sacked him for "gross misconduct," having decided that by giving the teen a damp tissue he had “placed young children under his care at risk” by applying first aid without training, and in failing to report an accident.

An “indignant” Mr Burke challenged his March 2024 dismissal before an Employment Tribunal, which rejected his claim, before taking his case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London.

On appeal, Mr Burke, representing himself, insisted that giving a tissue to an injured child was a "normal thing" for someone to do, but had his case rejected and his claim thrown out after a judge said the act could be regarded as first aid.

The club is one of a network run by the Harrow Club, an organisation set up in the Victorian era by philanthropists linked to the Harrow School to aid disadvantaged children in poor areas of London.

The incident which triggered Mr Burke's dismissal occurred in July 2023 when two youngsters were involved in an “altercation” at the club, which he initially tried to calm down, the tribunal heard.

Soon after, the conflict between the two youths spilled outside, with one of them falling to the ground, at which point Mr Burke “successfully intervened”.

The third stage of the incident happened away from the club, with both youngsters fighting and one of them losing a tooth after he was punched in the face.

When the injured teen returned to the club, he was visibly bleeding and had dried blood around his mouth, prompting Mr Burke to “give him some tissue to wipe the blood away” and to help him look for his lost tooth outside.

But the next year, the youth worker was presented with disciplinary charges by his bosses at The Harrow Club - which runs the Old Oak Youth Club - over the incident.

His employers said he had breached “safeguarding protocol” in failing to report an incident that led to medical treatment, by applying first aid without training or permission, by failing to notify a trained first aider, and not giving a full account of what happened in an initial statement.

Defending himself against the charges, Mr Burke insisted he had in fact been trained as a first aider, but that it was from a “long time ago and he did not have the paper”.

In terms of the help he offered the youngster, he had given “minimal assistance by offering wet tissue to clean a wound”, he said.

In pursuing him with disciplinary charges, Mr Burke said he also felt “scapegoated” by his employers, as his line manager and a qualified first aider had been present at the time and could have taken charge.

Rejecting his arguments, the Harrow Club disciplinary panel said it could find no evidence of Mr Burke being a qualified first aider, also pointing out that the first aiders on duty at the time had confirmed that he did not report the incident or seek their support.

Giving their reasons for sacking him for gross misconduct, the disciplinary panel found: “We reject that providing 'minimal assistance' of cleaning a wound does not amount to first aid. The young person had a missing tooth, which through your admissions you were providing medical assistance in cleaning their wound whilst neither qualified nor had permission in breach of the procedure.”

Mr Burke was also found to have failed to give a full account of the incident in his initial statement, while the panel concluded that his actions had “placed young children under your care at risk”.

His line manager was also dismissed, partly in relation to the tissue incident.

Mr Burke's challenge to the employment tribunal was in turn rejected.

The tribunal judge accepted that “it's not too difficult to imagine a more serious situation,” but continued: “I find that the claimant did indeed give what amounted to first aid and that, whatever the status of his qualifications may have been, he did so without that being authorised.

“I find it important to note that there was a first aider present at the time...This was not a case of someone acting when confronted by an emergency and when the first aider was not immediately available.

“I also find that handing a tissue or piece of tissue to wipe blood, whether it was dried blood or a modest quantity of flowing blood, may not have been the most technical piece of first aid, but was something that the respondent was entitled to regard as first aid nonetheless.”

In a final bid to win back his job, Mr Burke took his case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, arguing that sacking him was excessive punishment for a simple act of kindness.

Putting his case, he said that he "did not agree with the judge agreeing that me giving someone a piece of tissue to wipe a piece of visible dried blood would be me giving first aid.

“It's just a normal thing you may do if you see someone may need a piece of tissue, I did ask him before giving it if he wanted a piece of tissue as I could see a bit of blood, I did not think I was doing first aid," he added.

But ruling against him, Employment Appeal Tribunal judge James Tayler said there was no error of law in the finding against Mr Burke, ruling that his bosses were justified in deciding that his actions amounted to giving first aid.

“The decision cannot be said to be perverse,” the judge explained, before concluding: “I accept that the claimant was genuinely committed to the youths who attend, or attended, the club, who come from the estate where he lives.

“However, I am limited to considering the one ground of appeal that was permitted to proceed. The appeal is dismissed.”