Cases4102597/2023

Claimant v Greater Glasgow Health Board

19 November 2025Before Employment Judge P O'DonnellScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief based on a reasonable investigation that the claimant committed the alleged misconduct. The investigation was within the band of reasonable responses, the procedure was fair despite some minor delays, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses given the serious nature of the conduct involving mistreatment of a vulnerable patient.

Facts

The claimant was a senior charge nurse with 32 years' service who coordinated care for a vulnerable, non-verbal patient (Patient A). Multiple care staff from an external agency alleged the claimant engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Patient A including getting into the patient's bed, putting footballs up the patient's top, tickling, pinching, and getting in the patient's face despite the patient clearly objecting. The respondent investigated, held a disciplinary hearing, and dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct. The claimant denied the allegations and appealed. The same allegations led to criminal proceedings where the claimant was acquitted, and NMC proceedings which resulted in an interim suspension order.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim. It found the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in the misconduct based on a reasonable investigation. While the process took considerable time due to police involvement and scheduling difficulties, and there were minor procedural imperfections, the investigation and dismissal procedure overall fell within the band of reasonable responses. Dismissal for such serious misconduct involving mistreatment of a vulnerable patient was also within the band of reasonable responses.

Practical note

Even with 32 years' unblemished service, dismissal can be fair for serious misconduct involving vulnerable patients where multiple witnesses provide consistent evidence, the investigation is reasonable, and the employer genuinely believes the misconduct occurred, regardless of the outcome of parallel criminal proceedings.

Legal authorities cited

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton [1986] IRLR 112RSPCA v Cruden [1986] IRLR 83Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111A v B [2003] IRLR 405W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] ICR 662BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(4)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(1)

Case details

Case number
4102597/2023
Decision date
19 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
6
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Community Living Disability Charge Nurse
Service
32 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor