Mrs Krishna Rai v St. Luke’s Hospital — 2025

Mrs Krishna Rai was employed as an auxiliary nurse from 30 December 2014 until her dismissal on 23 January 2024. The respondent relied on misconduct, namely alleged neglect of a palliative care patient on 3 January 2024, an unauthorised break on 5 January 2024, failing to take a Covid test when symptomatic, using lifting equipment alone, and refusing a management instruction to assist with a patient transfer. The tribunal set out the issue as whether the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in each allegation. On the patient-care allegation, the claimant accepted that she had not changed the patient’s pad and had not informed the nurse in charge that the patient had refused care. On the unauthorised break, she initially denied it but later admitted she had taken the break without permission. On the Covid issue, the tribunal found she was displaying symptoms and that it was reasonable for the respondent to believe she knew she should test. On lifting and refusing assistance, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s case that she had acted as alleged, including where the claimant admitted that she should not have used the equipment alone and had refused to help with a lift.

The tribunal also found the procedure fair. The claimant was accompanied at all stages except the first investigation meeting, the allegations were put to her more than once, and the respondent carried out two investigation meetings, a disciplinary hearing and an appeal. Although Mrs Waine carried out both the investigation and the disciplinary hearing, the tribunal held that this did not make the process unfair in the circumstances, particularly because the claimant had made several admissions and the respondent was a relatively small employer in senior-management terms. The tribunal also found that the claimant understood the allegations despite English not being her first language and that the late addition of some documents caused no unfairness.

On sanction, the tribunal held that a reasonable employer could treat the accumulation of conduct as sufficient for summary dismissal, particularly in light of the claimant’s previous warnings and the respondent’s concern about patient safety. It accepted that some of the conduct was not specifically listed in the disciplinary policy as gross misconduct, but found the claimant could reasonably have expected the respondent to regard it as serious enough to justify dismissal. Because the tribunal found the procedure fair, it did not need to go on to consider Polkey. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.