Mr K McDonagh v Greater Glasgow Health Board: 4102606/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 2022 |
| Date | 24 October 2022 |
| Published date | 08 November 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 4102606/2020 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4102606/2020
Held remotely in Glasgow on 23 and 27 to 30 September 2022
Deliberations 30 September and 13 October 2022
5
Employment Judge D Hoey
Members: I Ashraf and A Grant
Mr K McDonagh Claimant
Represented by:
Ms McDonagh -
10
Claimant’s wife
Greater Glasgow Health Board Respondent
Represented by:
Ms K Henderson -
15
Solicitor
JUDGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. Of consent, and pursuant to Rule 64 of Schedule 1 to the Employment
Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the
20
Tribunal awards the claimant the gross sum of £186.15 (ONE HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY-SIX POUNDS AND FIFTEEN PENCE) by way of holiday pay
that had accrued by the end of the claimant’s employment, with the
respondent being required to deduct such sums as required by law from that
gross sum.
25
2. In terms of Section 12(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the Tribunal
declares that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written
statement of particulars for the period of June 2019 until January 2020 but
declines to make any award in terms of Section 12(4).
3. The Tribunal makes an award requiring the respondent to pay the claimant a
30
sum amounting to the equivalent to 2 week’s pay, namely the gross sum of
4102606/2020 Page 2
£750 (SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY POUNDS), pursuant to Section 38(4)
of the Employment Act 2002.
4. The remaining claims are ill founded and are dismissed.
REASONS
1. By ET1 accepted on 14 May 2020 the claimant claimed that he had been
5
unfairly dismissed and subject to a number of discriminatory acts. The
respondent disputed the claims.
2. The hearing was conducted in person with the claimant, his wife and the
respondent’s agent attending the entire hearing, with witnesses attending as
necessary, all being able to contribute to the hearing fairly and fully.
10
Case management
3. The parties had worked together to focus the issues in dispute and had
provided a statement of agreed facts and a list of issues. These documents
were refined by the final stage of the hearing.
4. A timetable for the hearing of evidence had been agreed and the parties
15
worked together to assist the Tribunal in achieving the overriding objective, in
dealing with matters justly and fairly taking account of the issues, cost and
proportionality. Robust case management allowed the hearing to conclude
one day sooner than had been allocated.
Issues to be determined
20
5. The issues to be determined were discussed during the hearing and a list of
issues was provided and was updated. The issues to be determined were as
follows:
Unfair dismissal
1. Was the reason for the claimant’s dismissal a potentially fair reason, namely
25
for matters relating to conduct? (Section 98(1)(a) of the Employment Rights
Act 1996)
4102606/2020 Page 3
2. Was it reasonable for the respondent to believe that the claimant was guilty
of gross misconduct?
3. If so, having regard to the tests set out in Burchell v British Home Stores,
had the respondent carried out sufficient investigation so that at the time of
dismissal they had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds of the
5
claimant’s misconduct? It was contended that the investigation was
inadequate insofar as:
a) No-one ever checked which way the door opened, or where the
claimant was coming from, in relation to the allegation that the claimant
threw the door open so hard it almost hit the wall;
10
b) The Management Statement of Case indicated that Mr Mullen had
given a statement against the claimant;
c) Mr Shaw’s evidence about the claimant’s behaviour on 14 June 2019
ought to have been further investigated by checking whether Mr Mullen
would have been able to hear the claimant shouting, had he done so;
15
d) The investigation team did not follow up the occupational health
referral after the claimant cancelled it;
e) The claimant did not see the CCTV footage in relation to 14 June 2019.
f) Ms Kane did not follow up second referral to the occupational health
psychiatrist.
20
4. Was dismissal within the band of reasonable responses?
5. Was a fair procedure followed with particular reference to any disciplinary
procedures?
6. Did the respondent fail to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary
Procedures? Alleged breaches were:
25
a) Ms Houghton conducted the first investigation meeting (on 3 July
2019) with Ms Murray presenting it;
To continue reading
Request your trial