Claimant v Western Isles Health Board
Outcome
Individual claims
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
Statutes
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