Claimant v Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

The tribunal found the first respondent's failure/refusal to put the claimant's name in the consultant field of biologic prescriptions, instead using Dr Russell's name or 'department of rheumatology', was direct race discrimination. White comparator Dr Russell had his name routinely placed in that field. The practice disadvantaged the claimant professionally and persisted despite repeated requests.

The tribunal found the grievance outcome sustained the discriminatory prescription practice by acknowledging the claimant should have had his name used but failing to reverse the practice or acknowledge race discrimination, constituting direct discrimination by the first and third respondents.

Petra Cannon's comment on 11 February 2021 — 'when you become the head of the rheumatology service, we will start putting your name there' with emphasis on 'you' and 'we' — in very close proximity to the claimant, was found to be unwanted conduct related to race that violated his dignity and created a hostile environment.

The tribunal found a fundamental breach of mutual trust and confidence through the continuing discriminatory prescription practice, failure to adequately address the claimant's repeated grievances about it, and the inadequate grievance outcome which was the last straw. The claimant resigned in response to the breach without affirming the contract.

The claim regarding failure to inform about Dr Drever's appointment as specialty team lead failed. Although the claimant was not told for several months, the tribunal found no evidence this was because of race; the role had low visibility during pandemic and Dr Russell continued to handle some STL functions.

The claim regarding failure to deal with the 'outpatient issue' (healthcare support worker conduct) failed. The tribunal found management responded appropriately and promptly to the claimant's complaints; there was no less favourable treatment.

Although several acts were found to be protected acts, the tribunal found no evidence that any of the alleged detriments (withdrawal of grand round support, alleged isolation, dismissing racism complaints, grievance recommendations) occurred because the claimant had raised concerns about race discrimination. Alternative non-discriminatory explanations were established.

The claims regarding retention of Dr Rathnamalala and Dr Armstrong in educational roles failed because keeping individuals in roles is not a provision, criterion or practice capable of being applied to others. The claim regarding workforce policies failed because the claimant did not establish that ethnic minority staff were disproportionately disadvantaged by the information sharing/redaction protocols across all complaints under those policies.

The wrongful dismissal/notice pay claim failed because the claimant resigned without giving notice and was therefore not entitled to be paid notice pay (separate from any constructive dismissal compensation).

The claim for failure to provide written statement of terms when moving to permanent contract in September 2022 failed. The tribunal found it more likely than not the claimant received automated notification via the EES system, the terms were the same as standard NHS Scotland consultant contracts which were easily accessible, and the claimant did not raise the issue at the time.