Appeal No. EAT/1327/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 February 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE COLLINS CBE
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP
MISS C HOLROYD

MISS F FARAH	APPELLANT

HAMMERSMITH HOSPITALS NHS TRUST	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No appearance by 
or on behalf of the Appellant

JUDGE COLLINS CBE

1	This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London North, the extended reasons being promulgated on 2 September 1999.  The decision of the Tribunal after a 2 day hearing was to dismiss the Appellant’s claim for unfair dismissal.  The Appellant has not attended today to proceed with her appeal so that we shall deal with it on the documents.

2	The Appellant was a Staff Nurse employed by the Respondents between 5 May 1996 and 8 December 1998.  She was dismissed for professional shortcomings after an extremely thorough investigation and a Disciplinary and Appeal Hearing.  By  her Notice of Appeal dated 8 October 1999, she alleged that the decision of the Tribunal was perverse in  that they had come to a decision which no reasonable Tribunal could have come to. The issues for the Employment Tribunal were set out in  a direction which they gave on 27 April 1999.  Their findings of fact were that there was  a detailed investigation by the Lead Nurse in Private Healthcare into complaints which had been made about the Appellant’s fitness for her job as a Staff Nurse in a variety of respects.  That investigation and report had led to her being suspended on 26 August 1998 and was followed by an investigation hearing which lasted 2 days, conducted by Mrs Goldman, the General Manager of the Private Healthcare Service at the hospital.  The Appellant had a solicitor present during that hearing. As a result of that investigation, on 8 December there was a Disciplinary Hearing presided over by Mrs Goldman. There was a suggestion that that was unacceptable because the disciplinary hearing was conducted by the same person who conducted the investigatory hearing.  The procedure, at the hospital, was not a judicial procedure; it was a procedure which was adapted to the circumstances of the hospital’s arrangements. There was an adequate appeal procedure and we do not think that because Mrs Goldman conducted an investigation which followed the detailed investigation by the lead nurse, that that prevented her from taking part in a Disciplinary Hearing.  On the contrary, it might have put her in a better position.  At any rate, she dismissed the Appellant and gave her reasons on 14 December.  On 11 February 1999 there was an appeal hearing before a three person panel. They had all the previous documents before them, they heard oral evidence and they heard the Appellant raise questions of harassment and victimisation, although she had not raised those earlier.  On 25 March 1999 they signified their decision  to uphold the decision of Mrs Goldman.

3	The Employment Tribunal concluded that the Appellant’s conduct in professional matters was an admissible reason for dismissing her and that the procedural steps gone through gave her every opportunity, to state her case. They decided that the importance of the safety and well being of patients  justified the Respondents in making an immediate decision to dismiss.  The Tribunal held that in all the circumstances the decision to dismiss was a fair one. In our judgment there is no basis for the Appellant’s contention that that decision was perverse.  We find that the Tribunal considered every aspect of the matter in great detail just as the Respondents had done in an detailed and fair procedure designed to establish the truth or otherwise of the complaints which had been made about the Appellant’s conduct and accordingly this appeal will be dismissed.