Case 4106008/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Phillips The State Hospital Board for Scotland v Represented by: Mr P Deans - Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106008/2019
- Decision date
- 7 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Phillips The State Hospital Board for Scotland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Nursing Assistant at the State Hospital, Carstairs, complained that he was unfairly dismissed on 7 December 2018 following an investigation into an incident on 6 March 2018 in which patient A was said to have assaulted patient B in the Iona 2 dayroom. The respondent said the dismissal was for misconduct. The tribunal accepted that misconduct was the potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal held that the investigation carried out by Ms Totten was reasonable in the circumstances. It noted that she interviewed patients A, B and C, a number of staff members, and the claimant, and that she had sought clinical guidance on how to take statements from the patients. Although the claimant criticised the investigation as predetermined and said that patients D and E should also have been interviewed, the tribunal found that the investigation was not unreasonable and that the claimant had been given sufficient notice of the case against him and an opportunity to respond.
At the disciplinary hearing, the panel heard from Ms McDougall and SCN McFarlane and considered the written and oral evidence. It accepted Ms McDougall as a credible and reliable witness, including her account that she saw and heard the assault and that the claimant did nothing in response. The panel concluded that the claimant was present, was aware of the incident, and failed to take action, which it treated as gross misconduct. The appeal panel later upheld the dismissal on 5 February 2019.
The tribunal applied section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell test, and the band of reasonable responses approach. It concluded that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief, had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable, and that summary dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and did not go on to determine remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal for misconduct was fair under s.98 ERA 1996 and did not award any remedy. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- Westminster City Council v Cabaj
- Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Foley v Post Office
- Midland Bank plc v Madden
- Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.