Mr Charles Bryden v – Solicitor Boots Management Services Ltd — 2021

Mr Charles Bryden was employed by Boots Management Services Ltd from 6 August 2010 until his dismissal on 31 August 2020. The tribunal heard evidence about issues raised in an April 2020 email from the Ayr store manager, Leanne Salvona, and about events on 1 August 2020 when the claimant removed a public delivery from the system, later sought to contact the store, and had a difficult telephone conversation with Ms Salvona. A further complaint concerned an alleged failure to log and escalate a missing controlled drug report from the Girvan store. Ms Lowe investigated, Ms Addison conducted the disciplinary hearing on 28 August 2020, and the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The appeal was heard by Mr Hunter and dismissed on 2 November 2020.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that conduct was the reason for dismissal and applied the Burchell approach, together with section 98(4) ERA 1996. It held that Ms Addison genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the respondent had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had admitted removing the delivery from the system, had not logged the missing controlled drug issue, and that there was evidence about his manner with Ms Salvona. It also found that Ms Addison reasonably believed the April 2020 concern about removing a delivery from the system had been raised with the claimant.

The tribunal further held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to the respondent. It accepted that the respondent was entitled to regard the removal of the delivery, the associated risk to patient medication, and the claimant's dealings with colleagues as sufficiently serious to justify dismissal, even if dismissal was towards the harsher end of the range. On the contract claim, the tribunal held that the claimant's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and of the mutual obligation of trust and confidence, so the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss him without notice or payment in lieu. Both claims were dismissed and the tribunal said it was unnecessary to address contributory conduct, Polkey or mitigation.