MR M HOPE v British Medical Associaion — 2020

The claimant was employed as a Senior Policy Adviser, with responsibilities including professional regulation and whistleblowing work. The case arose after a January 2019 dispute about comments on a report and then a series of grievances and informal concerns about tone, meeting attendance, and management decisions. The tribunal recorded that the claimant repeatedly sought to keep matters informal while reserving the option of a formal grievance, and that management became concerned that the grievance process was being used in a vexatious way.

The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct, namely repeated informal grievances, refusal to progress or withdraw them, refusal to meet with Mr Jethwa and Ms Dunn, failure to attend the grievance hearing, and continued challenge to management decisions about who should attend meetings. It accepted that the respondent genuinely believed that this conduct amounted to misconduct and rejected the claimant's case that the dismissal was retaliation for his use of the grievance procedure.

The tribunal held that the investigation was reasonable, including the gathering of evidence from relevant staff, consideration of the claimant's documents, and review of the grievance policy. It found that the appointment of Mr Kibling as an external disciplinary chair was within the range of reasonable responses, that the claimant had a fair opportunity to present his case, and that the appeal was properly considered. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell and Iceland principles, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was a fair sanction, was within the band of reasonable responses, and that there was evidence of a breakdown in working relationships and impact on Ms Dunn. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.