Claimant v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

The Tribunal determined as a preliminary matter that the claimant had not made a protected disclosure on 13 November 2019. Without a valid protected disclosure, the claim for detriment for making protected disclosures was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the time and are not repeated in this judgment.

The Tribunal determined as a preliminary matter that the claimant had not made a protected disclosure on 13 November 2019. Without a valid protected disclosure, the claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the time and are not repeated in this judgment.

The Tribunal found the respondent had proven the reason for dismissal was conduct, a potentially fair reason. The respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for this belief following thorough investigations by Walters and Pugh, and carried out a reasonable investigation. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer. Despite some procedural concerns (including delays and the disciplinary hearing proceeding in the claimant's absence), the Tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The claimant had exhibited a persistent pattern of unprofessional, rude, and uncooperative behaviour over a significant period, including threatening emails, abusive language, and undermining colleagues, which justified summary dismissal.

The Tribunal found the claimant had committed gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. Individual acts (e.g., allegation 17 involving threats of violence, allegation 93 involving an inappropriate voicemail to the Medical Director) and the cumulative pattern of persistent, unacceptable, rude, and uncooperative behaviour over a significant period constituted fundamental breaches of contract. The claimant was not entitled to notice pay, and there was no contractual entitlement to reinstatement pending appeal, so no wages were owed between dismissal and the appeal outcome.

The claimant claimed entitlement to full pay between dismissal (25 July 2022) and the appeal outcome (8 August 2023). The Tribunal found that the respondent's disciplinary policy did not provide a contractual right to reinstatement pending appeal. The policy stated that lodging an appeal would not suspend the notice of dismissal, and compensation would only be payable if the appeal succeeded and resulted in reinstatement. As the appeal upheld the dismissal, there was no breach of contract and no entitlement to back pay.