The Facts
Ms Adeshina, a British citizen of Nigerian origin and black African ethnicity, was employed as a Principal Pharmacist in the Prison Service since 2002. She was employed by St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust ('the Respondent').
In January 2011, funding was secured for the institution of a Central Pharmacy Unit at HMP Wandsworth and Ms Adeshina had a leading role to play in the project. However, complaints were subsequently made by colleagues about her attitude towards the project, in particular that she had behaved unprofessionally during a senior management meeting. Following an internal investigation, the matter was referred to a disciplinary hearing and the process was concluded in May 2012, when she was finally dismissed by the Respondent for gross misconduct.
Ms Adeshina appealed and at the appeal hearing, she raised further allegations of racial discrimination and detriment due to protected disclosures. The appeal panel upheld the decision to dismiss. Ms Adeshina then presented various claims including race discrimination and unfair dismissal at the Employment Tribunal. All of these claims were dismissed.
As previously reported, Ms Adeshina unsuccessfully appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). The principal points of interest arising from the decisions of the tribunal and EAT were that an internal appeal cured defects in the employer's original decision to dismiss.
Ms Adeshina appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal's Decision
The focus of the Court of Appeal's decision was whether the disciplinary charges and findings were incorrectly characterised as a conduct rather than capability issue and whether this conduct was capable of amounting to gross misconduct, thus justifying her dismissal.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of the EAT, which concluded that where an employee in a senior management role and leading on an operational change in the workplace has been found to lack commitment and to fail to cooperate, support and lead on the project, it can properly be described as a "conduct" issue.
The Respondent had a reasonable belief that Ms Adeshina was deliberately resistant and obstructive. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal found this was capable of amounting to gross misconduct.
Best Practice
Whilst much of the Court of Appeal's decision is fact sensitive and therefore of limited significance, it goes to show how an employee's poor attitude might reasonably result in dismissal.
Employers should be reminded that, where possible, they must ensure that their disciplinary procedures are carefully followed and that they can justify any decision to dismiss an employee for gross misconduct. In certain instances, it may be more appropriate to issue a final written warning and/or offer training, but the decision will ultimately depend on the facts in each case.
For more information, please contact Charlotte Williams in the Employment Law team on 0117 314 5219.