Mr M M Rabie Ahmed v Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

Mr M M Rabie Ahmed was employed by Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust as a locum consultant on a fixed-term basis. The tribunal found that he was not dismissed at the 11 December 2020 meeting, despite his belief that he had been given notice then. Instead, his employment was terminated by Mr Sweeney’s letter of 19 May 2021, with effect from 31 August 2021. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the real reason for dismissal was his bullying complaint, the Miss Rowland matter, or the list of 18 concerns referred to by Mr Smith.

The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the Directorate Triumvirate had decided, following consultation and workforce review, to recruit substantive consultants going forward and that there was no longer a need for locum consultant cover. It held that this was some other substantial reason within section 98 ERA 1996 and that the respondent genuinely believed the decision was fair and substantial in the context of workforce planning. The tribunal found that the claimant’s fixed-term contract was clear on its face and rejected his evidence that he had been appointed on a long-term basis until CESR registration.

Applying the section 98(4) test and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that dismissal was fair. It took into account that the claimant had been warned in advance that a consultant appointment could mean his contract would not be renewed, that alternative SAS specialty doctor posts were identified and offered, and that he was placed on the redeployment register. The tribunal also found that the respondent investigated the claimant’s grievances and allegations, including through an independent investigation and appeal stages, and that although there were errors and delay, they made no material difference to the fairness of the dismissal.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s comparison with Mr Gashut. It held that Mr Gashut’s position was materially different in terms of service, role and duties, and that the respondent was not required to repeat what it described as an error of the past by allowing a locum consultant to gain permanent tenure through effluxion of time. The complaint of unfair dismissal therefore failed and no award was made.