Miss Janet Ramsden v Ministry of Defence — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for conduct, a potentially fair reason under section 98 ERA 1996. It rejected the argument that the first written warning was manifestly inappropriate, noting that the claimant had been notified of the rearranged meeting, accepted that she had taken unauthorised leave, and accepted that it was reasonable for the respondent to proceed in her absence.

The tribunal had concerns about the final written warning process, including an early meeting where decision-makers and fact-finders expressed views, some direction by the decision-maker of the investigator, and the role played by DBS. It nevertheless found that the warning was not manifestly inappropriate because there were prima facie grounds for disciplinary action arising from multiple witness accounts about the incident involving Major Walsh, and because the respondent acted in good faith. The tribunal also said the repeated fraud allegation was "completely baseless" and should never have been made, but found it had been retracted and did not form part of the sanction.

As to dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for believing the claimant had committed misconduct after a detailed investigation. The claimant accepted that she had administered vaccinations without authorisation, had seen patients without supervision, and had at least once not properly recorded a consultation. The tribunal found that the procedure, including the disciplinary hearing and appeal, gave the claimant opportunity to present her case and mitigation, and that dismissal by escalation from the live final written warning was within the band of reasonable responses.