Mrs U D Rasarathnam v Cowfold Medical Group — 2022

Mrs U D Rasarathnam was employed by Cowfold Medical Group as a dispenser from 8 March 2008 until her summary dismissal on 22 June 2020. The tribunal found that the case concerned conduct issues in 2019 and 2020, not discrimination, and that the claimant had been told during the hearing that if she wished to pursue a discrimination amendment she would need to apply separately; she chose to proceed with the unfair dismissal claim as presented. The tribunal also noted that the respondent was a relatively small GP surgery with limited administrative resources.

The tribunal accepted that there were longstanding interpersonal issues between the claimant and Mrs Rodrigo, but held that those background matters were not the basis for the dismissal decision. The material events were a series of medication-dispensing incidents, including a post-dated Tramadol prescription dispensed in May 2020, concerns about using old labels as a workaround, and an allegation of incorrect quantities of Amoxicillin. The tribunal found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, interviewed the claimant and relevant witnesses, suspended her on contractual pay, set out the allegations in a disciplinary letter, held a hearing on 18 June 2020, and offered an appeal which the claimant did not pursue.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, BHS v Burchell, and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had conducted as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It held that the conduct involved serious failings in the dispensing of controlled drugs and could have had serious consequences for patients, so the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair. The tribunal referred to Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt in relation to the reasonableness test and concluded that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

On the notice-pay issue, the tribunal treated the claim as one for wrongful dismissal and held that the same conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach of contract, so summary dismissal without notice was justified. It referred to Laws v London Chronicle, Briscoe v Lubrizol, Neary v Dean of Westminster, and London Central Bus Company v Nana-Addai in explaining the contractual distinction between unfair and wrongful dismissal. The redundancy claim was dismissed because it was not pursued and, in any event, the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for conduct, not redundancy.