Bleasdale v Healthcare Locums Plc & Ors

In an unfair-dismissal claim founded on protected disclosures, the reason or principal reason for dismissal is a factual question concerning the facts or beliefs which operated on the employer’s mind. An appellate tribunal will not replace findings properly open to the Employment Tribunal.

Where the alleged disclosures have mixed motives, the tribunal must identify the claimant’s dominant purpose in deciding whether they were made in good faith. A misconduct dismissal is fair where the employer has a genuine belief in misconduct, formed on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and dismissal falls within the range of reasonable responses.

The claimant, a former executive of Healthcare Locums plc, was dismissed for gross misconduct after an investigation into alleged involvement in false accounting and a further allegation concerning the sale of a database.

Following a 15-day hearing, the Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims of automatic unfair dismissal under ERA s.103A, ordinary unfair dismissal under ERA s.98, detriment, sex discrimination and victimisation. It found that the dismissal was caused by the disciplinary officers’ genuine belief in misconduct, rather than by disclosures, sex or protected acts.

Her appeal challenged only the findings on automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal. The central issues were whether the bad-faith case had been fairly put, whether the Tribunal had adequately identified the reason for dismissal, and whether its application of the Burchell approach was legally sustainable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal’s extensive reasons disclosed no error of law. Its findings were permissible findings of fact and were neither inadequately reasoned nor perverse.

2. The issue of the claimant’s good faith in making the January disclosures had been fairly raised. It appeared in the case-management process and list of issues, was put in cross-examination, and was addressed in closing submissions. The Tribunal was entitled to find that, although some statements were qualifying disclosures, the claimant’s dominant purpose in making the relevant January disclosures was to advance her own cause. They were therefore not made in good faith.

3. For the purpose of ERA s.103A, the decisive question was the employer’s reason for dismissal: the facts known or beliefs held by the decision-maker which caused the dismissal. The Tribunal had made a clear finding that the disciplinary and appeal officers genuinely believed the claimant guilty of misconduct and dismissed her for that reason, not because of any disclosure. Reading the reasons as a whole, there was no conflation of genuine belief with the statutory reason for dismissal and the reasons were adequate.

4. Under ERA s.98, the Tribunal was entitled to find the dismissal fair by applying the Burchell test. The employer had conducted a reasonable investigation which gave reasonable grounds for its genuine belief in misconduct. It was unnecessary for the Tribunal itself to hear from, or decide the reliability of, the employee who had implicated the claimant. The relevant inquiry was the reasonableness of the employer’s investigation and belief. The Tribunal was also entitled to find that the process was not pre-ordained, that the additional database allegation was fairly dealt with, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

5. The respondents’ costs application was adjourned for a later hearing before the Judge sitting alone.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed: [2014] UKEAT 0324_13_1504.
• Employment Tribunal, London (Central): on 21 June 2012, dismissed the claimant’s complaints, including automatic unfair dismissal under ERA s.103A and ordinary unfair dismissal under ERA s.98.