Claimant v Avicenna Retail Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. The investigation was not sufficiently thorough for a large employer with HR resources. The Respondent did not conduct a proper investigation interview with the Claimant or adequately test his responses with the staff making allegations. The Respondent did not have a reasonable basis for concluding the Claimant continuously neglected his duties, put patient safety at risk, or bullied staff. The most severe reasonable sanction would have been a final written warning with coaching and mediation, not dismissal.
The Claimant alleged race discrimination relating to removal of lunchtime supervision payment, requirement to remain on site during lunch, and limitations on activities during lunch breaks. The tribunal found the lunchtime supervision payment was not removed. The Claimant accepted in cross-examination that the requirements had nothing to do with his race. There was no evidence linking the treatment to the Claimant's race and no valid comparator to demonstrate less favourable treatment.
Facts
The Claimant was a long-serving Pharmacy Manager (19 years) dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after staff complaints. Staff alleged he spent work time watching Netflix, tutoring his daughter, and engaging in non-work activities; put patient safety at risk; and bullied staff through a robust management style including testing employees in front of colleagues. The Claimant had received a lunchtime supervision payment allowing the pharmacy to remain open during his lunch hour. The Respondent investigated and dismissed the Claimant following a disciplinary hearing, with dismissal upheld on appeal.
Decision
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The investigation was insufficiently thorough, lacked precision about the time spent on non-work activities, and did not adequately test the Claimant's responses with witnesses. The Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to conclude the Claimant continuously neglected duties, put patient safety at risk, or bullied staff. The race discrimination claims failed as there was no evidence the treatment was linked to the Claimant's race. A 25% reduction was applied for contributory conduct relating to poor management style.
Practical note
Large employers with professional HR must conduct thorough, precise investigations before dismissing long-serving employees, including properly interviewing the employee and testing their responses with witnesses, particularly where allegations lack precision about timing and extent of alleged misconduct.
Adjustments
The tribunal found the Claimant contributed to there being a bad atmosphere and discontent at the branch due to his management style and approach. There was material discontent at his management style and approach. This was culpable conduct, though not warranting summary dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002767/2023
- Decision date
- 14 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Pharmacy Manager
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No