Mr I Pritchard v - Advocate Western Isles Health Board — 2019

Mr I Pritchard was employed as a Lead Biomedical Scientist in Microbiology. After complaints by Ms Shand, Ms Fraser investigated under the respondent’s Dignity at Work and Employee Conduct policies. Her report found some allegations not established in fact, but concluded there were themes of intimidating, undermining and sarcastic behaviour, and that the claimant’s conduct towards Ms Shand and other colleagues could be characterised as bullying under the policy. Mr McPherson then issued a first and final written warning on 24 April 2018 and required a supported improvement programme and mediation, which were later the subject of appeal and return-to-work discussions.

The tribunal found that at the August and September 2018 return-to-work meetings the respondent sought an acknowledgement that behaviours identified in the investigation needed to change before mediation and the supported improvement programme could proceed. The claimant maintained that the allegations were not true, said there had been no proper hearing, and only at the end of the 19 September meeting made a limited acknowledgment that he could be sarcastic, flippant and more communicative. Mr MacPherson and Mr Jamieson did not regard that acknowledgment as genuine or sufficient. Mr MacPherson therefore dismissed him on 24 September 2018, stating that there had been a breakdown in workplace relationship and trust and confidence arising from the failure to obtain satisfactory reassurance that he could safely return to work.

The tribunal held that the respondent had established some other substantial reason for dismissal, based on a genuine concern that the claimant’s relationships with colleagues had broken down, particularly with Ms McDonald and others who had raised complaints, and that a safe return to the laboratory required some acceptance that behaviour needed to change. It held that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and that the procedure was fair: the claimant had notice of the issues, was represented, had opportunities to respond, and received a full appeal hearing. The tribunal rejected the submission that the process was an impermissible re-run of the disciplinary process or a form of double jeopardy, and it dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.