Ms E Horrocks v Lloyds pharmacy — 2021

The tribunal considered only the unfair dismissal claim. The respondent accepted that it had dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, so the issue was whether it had acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient for dismissal and whether the procedure and sanction were fair overall.

The tribunal found that the claimant had admitted the four allegations relied on by the respondent: completing date-checking records as if checks had been carried out when they had not, disposing of evidence relating to a dispensing error contrary to procedure, falsely recording that staff had completed an SOP update, and regularly signing SOPs without reviewing, reading or understanding them. It found the respondent reasonably concluded that these acts were deliberate, wilful or, in relation to the blister pack, at least negligent, and that they created risks in a regulated pharmacy setting where patient safety was primary.

The tribunal also found no procedural unfairness. It held that the investigation notes from colleagues were not relevant documents for the disciplinary decision, that the disciplinary manager made her own decision, and that the appeal process was conducted fairly. Taking account of the claimant’s admissions, senior role, responsibilities, length of service and previous record, the tribunal concluded that summary dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed and was dismissed.