Cases8000974/2024

Claimant v Western Isles Health Board

29 August 2025Before Employment Judge M RobisonScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. Although the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to apply the correct disciplinary procedure (PCS8 Annex C), the tribunal found that the procedure actually followed (WFCP) did not result in procedural or substantive unfairness. The sanction of dismissal for gross misconduct was held to be within the range of reasonable responses.

Facts

The claimant, a senior dental officer with over 25 years' service, was dismissed for gross misconduct following allegations including fraudulent timesheets, failure to follow medical director's instruction to cease sedation services, data breaches, unprofessional conduct, health and safety violations, and non-compliance with professional guidelines. A preliminary hearing established that the respondent was contractually obliged to apply PCS8 Annex C (the professional conduct procedure for dentists) but instead applied the general NHS Workforce Conduct Policy. The claimant participated in the investigation but withdrew from the conduct hearing on union advice. Multiple allegations were upheld, and dismissal followed.

Decision

The tribunal held that although the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to apply the correct disciplinary procedure, this did not render the dismissal unfair. The tribunal found that the procedure actually followed was reasonable, the investigation thorough, and the respondent's belief in the claimant's misconduct was genuine and based on reasonable grounds. The sanction of dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. The claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Practical note

A breach of contractual disciplinary procedure does not automatically render a dismissal unfair; tribunals must assess whether the procedure actually followed caused substantive unfairness or denied the employee a fair opportunity to defend themselves, applying the range of reasonable responses test.

Legal authorities cited

Taylor v OCS [2006] ICR 1603Westminster City Council v Cabaj [1996] ICR 960BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Welsh National Opera Ltd v Johnston [2012] EWCA Civ 1046Awan v ICTS (UK) Ltd [2019] ICR 695

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(4)

Case details

Case number
8000974/2024
Decision date
29 August 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Public Dental Service Dentist (Senior Dental Officer)
Service
25 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister