Mr D Rogers, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, a consultant who started work for the respondent on 1 February 2022, had difficulty with the respondent's new systems and with changes to weekend working. The tribunal found that she was stressed and frustrated during the integration process and that some of her conduct upset colleagues, but it rejected several of the respondent's stronger factual allegations, including the alleged remark to Diana Baranowski and the more serious versions of the allegations said to have arisen on 13 July 2022.

The tribunal found some episodes of minor misconduct, including the tone of the claimant's 25 May email, her raised voice during the 30 May needle incident, and the way the 4/5 June nursing cover issue was handled. It also found that she breached the contract by delaying notification of sickness on 8 June, but only in circumstances where she was very unwell. By contrast, it held that the claimant's attendance at consultant meetings while on sick leave was not misconduct, that the 20 April meeting was constructive, and that the respondent had not proved the alleged conduct on 13 July that was relied upon in the dismissal letter.

Applying the objective test for repudiatory breach, and taking the incidents together, the tribunal held that the claimant's conduct was nowhere near serious enough to justify summary dismissal. It noted that the respondent could and should have used formal disciplinary processes if it wished to address these matters, but that the failure to do so was not relevant to whether a repudiatory breach existed. The tribunal therefore upheld the wrongful dismissal claim and said the claimant was entitled to three months' notice; the separate unlawful deduction claim was recorded as dismissed because it had been formally withdrawn at the start of the hearing.