Case 2302594/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302594/2019
- Decision date
- 23 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
- Panel members
- Ms L Hawkins, Mr N Shanks
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed all five claims. It accepted that some of the claimant's later complaints at JMCC meetings and an SAS development meeting were capable of amounting to protected disclosures, and that he took part in some trade union activities, but it found no causal link between those matters and the decision to investigate or dismiss him. By contrast, the earlier comments said to concern consultants leaving early and Dr Gupta's competence were not treated as protected disclosures on the evidence before the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the investigation into the claimant arose from consultant complaints in 2016 about his working relationships, attitude and conduct, not from any protected disclosure or trade union activity. It rejected the claimant's case that Dr Sigston acted out of vendetta or that the process was a "witch hunt", and it was satisfied that the use of an external investigator, the terms of reference, and the material provided to the claimant were all within a proper process. It also rejected the allegations of procedural unfairness and bias, including complaints about notice, disclosure, and the way the reconvened disciplinary hearing was handled.
On the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted the respondent's conduct reason under ERA s.98. It found that the investigations were thorough, that the respondent had a reasonable belief in misconduct, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal identified one gross misconduct incident, namely the claimant's failure to attend to a baby who had arrived cyanosed until he had finished a personal phone call, and also relied on an accumulation of less serious misconduct, mainly concerning his manner towards colleagues.
The tribunal said that it did not need to determine remedy because the claims failed. It added, however, that if it had been wrong on liability, any compensation would have been subject to substantial reduction because the claimant had been found grossly insubordinate and had refused to give the apology that would have allowed him to remain in post.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under ERA s.103A. The tribunal accepted that some later matters raised by the claimant were protected disclosures, but found no causal link between any protected disclosure and the decision to investigate or dismiss him. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Automatic unfair dismissal under TULRCA s.152. The tribunal accepted that the claimant took part in some trade union activities, including JMCC meetings, but found no causal link between that activity and the dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under ERA ss.94 and 98. The tribunal found conduct was the reason for dismissal, that the investigations were thorough and reasonable, and that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under ERA s.47B. The tribunal rejected the claimant's characterisation of the investigation as a vendetta or witch hunt, and found the alleged detriments were either not established on the facts or were not caused by protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Detriment claim under TULRCA s.146. The tribunal accepted some trade union participation but found no detriment proved on the facts, and no causal link between any such activity and the treatment complained of. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- NHS Manchester v Fecitt
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Burchell test
- Post Office v Foley
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.146 TULRCA 1992
- s.152 TULRCA 1992
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.