Dr A Khan v Represented by Mr E Stafford Solicitor NHS Highland — 2021

Dr A Khan was employed by NHS Highland from 1 December 2001 until his dismissal on 19 September 2018. He was suspended in May 2018 after allegations of bullying and harassment of colleagues and dishonesty about hours worked and time off in lieu. An investigation by Ian Thomson upheld most of the allegations in substance and recommended a disciplinary hearing. At the first disciplinary outcome, Tracy Ligema upheld the allegations of inappropriate questioning and undermining of colleagues, partly upheld the allegation of verbally intimidating and abusing colleagues, upheld the allegation of dishonesty about hours worked, and did not uphold the TOIL allegation. She decided that the conduct amounted to gross misconduct and dismissed the claimant.

On appeal, David Park upheld the findings of bullying and harassment and dishonesty about hours worked, but substituted a first and final warning for dismissal. He concluded, however, that the claimant could not realistically be returned to the service because of the breakdown in relationships with colleagues, the small size of the team, the effect on staff, and the absence of any viable redeployment option. A further appeal to David Garden did not alter that position: he concluded there had been a clear and substantial breakdown in relationships, that the claimant had shown no insight into the impact of his behaviour, and that the dismissal would stand on the basis identified by Mr Park.

The tribunal accepted that the statutory reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason under s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996, namely the breakdown in the working relationship with colleagues. It held that Mr Park genuinely formed the view that dismissal for that reason was appropriate and that the process satisfied s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal found there was substantial evidence that some colleagues would suffer serious stress if the claimant returned, that they lacked faith in his ability to change, that mediation would not be effective, and that there was a real risk of resignation or claims. It also found that reasonable efforts had been made to look for alternative roles, and that the appeal process allowed the claimant to respond to the changed basis for dismissal. The claim was therefore refused and no remedy was ordered.