In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, a Senior Paramedic employed since 7 November 2004, was dismissed on 17 February 2022 for gross misconduct arising from an incident on 18/19 August 2021 involving a 14-year-old intoxicated patient. The tribunal treated the issue as one of conduct under s.98 ERA 1996 and applied the Burchell approach, including whether the respondent held a genuine belief in misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation.

The tribunal found the investigation unfair because Marc Dixon did not adequately address the range of inconsistent accounts given by Daniel Johnson, including satellite allegations about lateness, speeding, road rage, and incentivised pay, and did not explain why later versions of Johnson's account were preferred over earlier ones. It also found that the patient care record completed by Johnson on 19 August 2021, which recorded that the patient shouted and punched the claimant in the mouth, was not disclosed during the disciplinary process despite the claimant's request, and that the disciplinary panel did not properly test Johnson's credibility before adopting his account.

The appeal panel upheld dismissal, but the tribunal held that the appeal process was also procedurally unfair because the claimant was told only ten minutes before the hearing that Johnson would attend and be available to answer questions. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account of what happened, rejected the respondent's reliance on Johnson's evidence, and concluded that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. It made no Polkey or contributory fault reduction, and said the respondent's failures could justify a 10% Acas Code uplift, but remedy was adjourned and no final monetary award was determined in this judgment.