Mrs S Bruce v Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust and others: 1302946/2016
JUDGMENT
By consent the claims of victimisation against R1 and R2 are dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. ORDER Background and issues[1]I explained to the claimant what is meant by a victimisation claim and we went in detail through the definition of a protected act. After I had done this the claimant confirmed that it was not her case that she had done a protected act and she indicated that she would be content for the victimsation claims against R1 and R2 to be dismissed on withdrawal. Prior to doing this I explained to the claimant what the effect of a dismissal on withdrawal would be. The claimant further agreed that her remaining claims of unfair dismissal and unpaid notice pay were bought against R1 only. It was agreed that the respondent’s name should be amended to Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust.[2]I discussed the unfair dismissal claim with both the claimant and the respondent. We were able to identify the following as issues in the claim:2.1 The respondent accepts that it dismissed the claimant and that it did so in July 2016. It is the respondent’s case that the claimant was dismissed for some other substantial reason - namely certain conditions of practice were imposed by the NMC on the claimant which meant that the respondent could no longer continue to employ her because it could not accommodate the conditions. The claimant disputes that this was the reason for dismissal albeit she does not have another alternative reason for why the respondent dismissed her.2.2 The claimant’s case is that her dismissal was unfair for the following reasons:(a) Her dismissal was premeditated. It is the claimant’s case that the respondent had decided by October 2015 to dismiss her. The claimant relies in particular on a letter from R2 to R1 in October 2015 in which the respondent is referred to as the claimant’s “previous employer”.(b) No policy was followed. The claimant accepts that she was invited to a meeting to discuss her situation prior to her dismissal and that she was given a right of appeal but she complains that no formal process was followed and/or she complains that her appeal was conducted under the disciplinary procedure.(c) It is the claimant’s case that her dismissal was outside the reasonable range bearing in mind that her ability to work in her chosen career has been adversely affected by the dismissal.(d) It is the claimant’s case that dismissal was outside the reasonable range because the conditions of practice imposed on her by the NMC were that she would need to be supervised for 9 months not that she could not practice and/or in the alternative the respondent could have downgraded her for this period. Witnesses The claimant proposes to give evidence herself. The respondent will call 3 or possibly 4 witnesses. The parties agree that the Hearing will last 5 days.[7]All applications for further orders or for variation of these orders are to be made immediately upon receipt of this Order or as soon as is practicable thereafter. The Overriding Objective[8]In accordance with the overriding objective, set out in Schedule 1, Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, this case will be managed so as to ensure a fair hearing. This may include limiting the time for witnesses’ evidence, cross-examination and the making of submissions. Failure to comply with this Order[9]Failure to comply with any part of this Order may mean that the tribunal has insufficient time to hear the application on the hearing date and may give rise, upon application by a party who has incurred extra costs as a result, to an Order for Costs or preparation time against the offending party. Further, the tribunal may regard any failure to comply with this Order as unreasonable conduct of proceedings in the event of an application for costs or a preparation time order against the party who has failed so to comply. Case No:1302946.16 Employment Judge Harding Dated: 7 February 2017 Date issued: 10 February 2017 Notes[1]The parties or their representatives should ensure that all documentary evidence and statements of the witnesses on whom they rely are supplied to the other party and the tribunal in accordance with this Order.[2]Only in exceptional circumstances will the tribunal consider:(a) the evidence of witnesses whose statements have not been exchanged, and/or(b) documents which are not included in the single bundle, in accordance with this Order.[3]It should also be noted that any correspondence between the parties endorsed "without prejudice" or correspondence between the parties and ACAS may not be admissible and should not be included in the agreed bundle of documents or disclosed to the tribunals until agreed by the parties, or ordered by the tribunal, to be included.[4]The parties’ attention is also drawn to Rule 2 (the overriding objective). The overriding objective is to enable tribunals to deal with cases justly. By Rule 2, the parties shall assist the tribunal to further the overriding objective.[5]Failure to comply with this order may result in the striking out, before or at the Hearing, of the whole or part of your claim if you are the claimant or the whole or part of your response if you are the respondent.[6]Failure to comply with this order may also result in a fine being upon you under the provisions of section 7(4)