Sacking of caretaker in £5m mantel row ‘unfair’
THE sacking of a stately home caretaker who gave away a rare Tudor artefact believed to be worth millions was “procedurally unfair”, a tribunal has ruled.
Brian Wilson, who lived in a caravan in the grounds of Seighford Hall near Stafford, let Andrew Potter take the “decorative piece” bearing the royal coat of arms of Queen Elizabeth I, the employment tribunal heard.
The oak overmantel, which was removed from the listed building in 2020, was said to be “rotten and riddled with wood worm and dry rot”.
The antique, which is 400 years old, was valued at £5 million. It was listed for sale last year but Stafford Borough Council stepped in to halt proceedings with an interim injunction.
The authority said there had been no listed building consent granted for the removal of the overmantel, which is one of the hall’s integral fixtures.
Action to seek a full injunction was later dropped by the council after all parties were made aware that it would be an offence to sell the overmantel.
Mr Wilson had first been employed at Seighford Hall when it was used as a nursing home. It ceased operating in 1998 and Mr Wilson was kept on at the site “to deal with any security and maintenance issues”.
In late 2020 he was invited by Thomas Butler, then managing director, to an investigation relating to the handing over of the overmantel without authorisation, sale of two fireplaces without authorisation and the sale of a tractor without permission.
Mr Wilson did not attend the investigation and said he did not receive the invitation. Further invitations were sent using the same delivery method, and later an invitation to a disciplinary hearing. Mr Wilson did not attend the meetings and the hearing took place in his absence. He was found to have committed gross misconduct and was dismissed.
Employment Judge Kate Hindmarch said that the dismissal had been “procedurally unfair”.
Her judgment stated: “I have identified procedural failings in that the First Respondent (Seighford Hall Nursing Home Ltd) did not make sufficient attempts to notify the claimant (Mr Wilson) of the disciplinary process and therefore he was offered no opportunity to attend the disciplinary hearing and offer his explanation for the alleged misconduct.
“The claimant admitted he removed this historic artefact from the hall and admitted letting a Mr Potter take it. The claimant suggests the overmantel was in very poor repair, however he accepts, as a listed building, proper consent needed to be given for removal of artefacts and that the condition of the overmantel revealed after its recovery do not support a contention that it was in poor repair.”
Mr Wilson was awarded £4,066 in unlawful deduction from wages and untaken holiday pay but was not entitled to any additional compensation for his sacking.