In Adeshina v St. George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Adeshina (‘A’) was the Principal Pharmacist at Wandworth Prison. The Trust decided to change the way in which pharmacy services were provided. The existing arrangements were to be replaced by a “Central Pharmacy Unit” (“the CPU”) with one of the principal operational changes being a move from being “nurse-led” to being “pharmacist-led”. ‘A’ strongly disapproved. A meeting with prison and trust senior managers a few days before the CPU was due to open was held to discuss the lack of progress, during which three witnesses said that ‘A’ had been disengaged and rude.

After the CPU formally opened, senior managers at the prison and within the Trust raised concerns about the leadership, or lack of it, shown by ‘A’ in the process leading up to the opening. ‘A’’s conduct was investigated and following a disciplinary hearing she was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, i.e. unprofessional behaviour as a senior manager: (i) during the meeting prior to the CPU opening where she had been disengaged, dismissive and rude; and, (ii) by deliberately failing to co-operate, support and lead the major service change in the Pharmacy department which had resulted in a negative impact on the new treatment centre.

An ET and the EAT found that having regard to all the circumstances, ‘A’’s dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and was fair in all the circumstances. ‘A’ appealed, her primary challenge being that the misconduct found against her was incapable of justifying dismissal. ‘A’ argued that her conduct at the meeting was ‘mere’ misconduct and a failure to lead was not deliberate but the result of incapability.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. It was clear that ‘A’ knew the allegations against her were being treated as potential gross misconduct and she had a full opportunity to state her case. The dismissing officer and the appeal panel both found the allegations of misconduct proved. As a senior manager, ‘A’’s misconduct had consisted of wilful/serious insubordination and a deliberate failure to co-operate, support and lead. The terms ‘deliberate’ and ‘wilful’ are integral elements of acts of gross misconduct. Given the facts, arguing that a failure to lead might be no more than incapability was wholly unsustainable.

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.