Mrs Yvette Louise Derry v St Helier Dental Surgery — 2021

Mrs Yvette Louise Derry brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from her summary dismissal by St Helier Dental Surgery on 30 November 2018. The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal based on conduct and applied section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 together with the Burchell guidance on whether the respondent held a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed since 1997 and had become Practice Manager in mid-2017. It accepted that confidentiality and data protection were important in the practice, that the claimant had signed a confidentiality agreement, and that she had received GDPR training in June 2018. The claimant had earlier raised a grievance against Dr Deval, which was resolved by external mediation in July 2018. The conduct relied on for dismissal arose on 28 October 2018, when the claimant accessed a document in a colleague NN's personal Google Drive that had been left open on a work computer, printed the statement, made a video showing how she had accessed it, texted a colleague about finding it, and later told Dr Deval what she had done.

The tribunal accepted that an independent investigator, Jane Perks, was appointed, that the claimant was interviewed and provided her own statement and documents, and that the investigation concluded there was a disciplinary case to answer for breach of confidentiality. At the disciplinary hearing the claimant admitted accessing and printing the document, and Dr Deval decided to dismiss for gross misconduct. The appeal was heard by Dr Gour, who the tribunal found was independent, and he upheld the dismissal after conducting further inquiry, including interviewing the colleague who had been absent from the original investigation.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent's procedures complied with its disciplinary policy and ACAS guidance, that the claimant had been given an opportunity to respond, and that any possible unfairness arising from Dr Deval chairing the disciplinary hearing was cured on appeal. It also found that the claimant had not attended the appeal hearing despite being given two opportunities. Taking the claimant's admissions, her role, the confidentiality obligations, and the respondent's size and resources into account, the tribunal held that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief in gross misconduct and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.