In NHS24 v Pillar, Pillar (P) was dismissed for gross misconduct after a third serious Patient Safety Incident (PSI). The first two incidents had not been treated as disciplinary matters and an ET decided that inclusion of details about them in an investigative report given to the dismissing officer fell foul of the “reasonable investigation” requirement in British Home Stores v Burchell, thus making the dismissal procedurally unfair. The EAT upheld the employer’s appeal. The ET’s decision was inconsistent with its own findings that the previous PSIs were relevant and that dismissal had been a reasonable outcome on the basis of the material before the dismissing officer. It was then novel to complain that an investigation was too thorough and as a consequence the dismissal was unfair. Burchell is directed primarily at the inadequacy of an investigation. The ET’s decision that it was unfair to include information about the previous PSI incidents was irrational and perverse.
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.