Ms D Udeze-Chibuzor v Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust: 1604405/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1604405/2024
Between
Ms D Udeze-ChibuzorClaimantWelsh Ambulance Services University NHS TrustRespondent
Before
Employment Judge S JenkinsIn person for claimantMr J Walters (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 4 July 2025
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal both fail and are dismissed. Authorised for issue by JUDGMENT having been sent to the parties on 18 July 2025, and reasons having been requested by the Claimant in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Rules of Procedure 2013:
REASONS
[1]The hearing was to consider the Claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, brought in a Claim Form issued on 6 December 2024, following early conciliation between 23 October 2024 and 4 December 2024.[2]I read and heard evidence from eight witnesses on behalf of the Respondent: Jason Killens, Chief Executive and the appeal decision maker; Kathryn Smith, Senior Investigating Officer employed by Aneurin Bevan University Health Board and the investigating officer; Jan Cross, People Business Leader; Liz Rogers, Deputy Director of People; Trish Mills, Director of Corporate Governance/Board Secretary and the disciplinary officer; Paola Spiteri, Retention Lead; John Vo-Hughes, formerly Workforce Systems Manager; and Linda Phillips, Workforce Transformation and Planning Business Partner.[3]I read and heard evidence from two witnesses on behalf of the Claimant: Julie Stokes, the Respondent’s Head of People Services; and the Claimant herself.[4]I also read the statement of another witness on behalf of the Claimant, her former solicitor, John Andrews, but he did not attend the hearing and there was therefore little weight I could attach to his evidence, which was, in any event, of limited relevance to the decisions I had to make.[5]In terms of documents, I considered the documents in three bundles to which my attention was drawn; a main bundle spanning 999 pages, a supplementary bundle spanning 325 pages, and a transcript bundle spanning 156 pages. I also took into account the parties’ closing submissions.
Issues
[6]A preliminary hearing had taken place in this case, before Employment Judge Moore on 15 April 2025, and she set out, in her Record of Preliminary Hearing the final hearing. They were the usual issues relating to unfair dismissal, where the reason advance for the dismissal was conduct, and relating to wrongful dismissal.[7]The list also encompassed remedy matters, but I observed at the outset of the hearing that there was very little evidence, whether in witness statements or the bundles, relating to remedy. I therefore indicated that my focus would initially be on liability matters, i.e. on whether or not the complaints succeeded, and we would return to remedy matters if the complaints were successful, either at the end of this hearing if time allowed or at a subsequent hearing. Obviously in light of my final decision that did not prove necessary.
Law
[8]The legal principles I had to consider in relation to the complaints were as follows: Unfair Dismissal[9]The first step for me to take in relation to the unfair dismissal claim would be to consider the reason for dismissal. The Respondent contended that it was the Claimant's conduct. I noted that I would have to be satisfied that the Respondent had demonstrated its reason for dismissal and that it was a potentially fair one falling within Section 98(1) or (2) ERA. I further noted that the Court of Appeal, in the case of Abernethy -v- Mott Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323, noted that the reason was the "… set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee."[10]If I was not satisfied that the Respondent had established conduct as the reason for dismissal then the Claimant's claim would succeed. If however I considered that it had, then I would need to go on to consider whether dismissal for that reason was fair in all the circumstances, applying the test set out in s98(4) ERA: "…the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer)-(a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and(b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case."[11]In the case of a conduct dismissal, that involves the application of the longestablished test set out in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) decision of BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379, which required me to be satisfied that the Respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, that that belief was based on reasonable grounds, and that those grounds were drawn from a reasonable investigation, the EAT, in Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23, having confirmed that the reasonableness of an investigation is to be viewed from the perspective of the range of reasonable responses.[12]I was conscious therefore that my role was not to step into the shoes of the Respondent but to consider whether the decision fell within the range of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer might adopt in the circumstances. That test would also apply to the scope of the investigation undertaken by the Respondent.[13]If I considered that the Burchell test was satisfied, I would then need to go on to consider whether imposition of the sanction of dismissal was fair in all the circumstances, the EAT decision of Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1982] IRLR 439 again requiring me to look at that from the perspective of the range of reasonable responses, i.e. considering the action taken by the Respondent in the context of whether it fell within the range of responses open to a reasonable employer acting reasonably in the circumstances.[14]The directions provided by the Burchell and Jones cases were elided together by the EAT in JJ Food Service Limited v Kefil [2013] IRLR 850 as follows: “8. In approaching what was a dismissal purportedly for misconduct, the Tribunal took the familiar four stage analysis. Thus it asked whether the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, secondly whether it had reached that belief on reasonable grounds, thirdly whether that was following a reasonable investigation and, fourthly whether the dismissal of the Claimant fell within the range of reasonable responses in the light of that misconduct.”[15]The EAT, in Hope v British Medical Association [2022] IRLR 206, confirmed that the determination of the question of whether an employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating an employee’s conduct as a sufficient reason for dismissal is to be assessed by application of that fourstage analysis.[16]I would also need to consider whether the Respondent acted in a procedurally fair manner. That encompassed observation of the core principles of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, and any relevant elements of the Respondent's own procedures. The core principles of the ACAS Code are that: the employee should be informed of the problem in writing, and be given sufficient information to be able to prepare to answer the case at a disciplinary meeting; that that meeting should be held without unreasonable delay, whilst allowing the employee reasonable time to prepare; that the employee be allowed to be accompanied at that meeting; that the employee be informed in writing of the outcome; and that the employee be allowed an opportunity to appeal.[17]Much of that was confirmed by the EAT in Spink v Express Foods Limited [1990] IRLR 320, where it was said: "It is a fundamental part of a fair disciplinary procedure that an employee know the case against him. Fairness requires that someone accused should know the case to be met; should hear or be told the important parts of the evidence in support of that case; should have an opportunity to criticise or dispute that evidence and to adduce his own evidence and argue his case." Wrongful Dismissal[18]With regard to the wrongful dismissal claim, the Claimant was summarily dismissed i.e. without notice. The question for me therefore was whether the Claimant had committed a repudiatory breach of contract, i.e. an act of gross misconduct, such as to justify the Respondent treating the contract as at an end and summarily dismissing the Claimant. The EAT, in the case of Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust -v- Westwood (UKEAT/0032/09), indicated that the Tribunal must consider both the character of the conduct and whether it was reasonable for the employer to regard that conduct as gross misconduct. That is an objective test on the facts of the case, considered on the balance of probability. Findings Context
Findings
[19]I set out below my findings of fact, relevant to the issues I had to determine, which I reached on the balance of probability where there was any dispute. Before noting them, however, I make some general observations about the reliability of memories of past events, both generally and in respect of this case.[20]Leggatt J, as he then was, in the commercial case of Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse UK [2013] EWHC 3560, warned that memory is especially unreliable when it comes to recalling past beliefs, as memories of past beliefs are revised to make them more consistent with present beliefs. The Judge noted that the process of litigation itself subjects the memories of witnesses to powerful biases, where the nature of litigation is such that witnesses often have a stake in a particular version of events.[21]The outcome of the Judge’s observations was that he felt that the best approach to adopt was to place little, if any, reliance on witnesses’ recollections of what was said in meetings and conversations, and to base factual findings on inferences drawn from the documentary evidence and from known or probable facts. I therefore focused on contemporaneous records to corroborate a particular party’s versions of events where they provided an additional source of evidence as to what happened. Conversely, in some circumstances, the lack of reference to particular matters suggested that a subsequent reference to it may have been misplaced.[22]In this case, the Claimant fundamentally disputed most of the allegations of misconduct, often describing them as fabricated. In particular, she described notes taken by her line manager, Ms Rogers, of meetings she had with the Claimant as false, contending that Ms Rogers’ notes of her meetings with others regarding the Claimant must therefore also be false, or at least inaccurate. However, the Claimant had covertly recorded two of her meetings with Ms Rogers, and the transcripts of those discussions, whilst obviously much more comprehensive, largely tallied with Ms Rogers’ notes. I was therefore satisfied that those notes were a broadly reliable record of the discussions they recorded.
Background
[23]The Respondent is the NHS body providing emergency, unscheduled, care services across Wales. It employs approximately 4,400 employees.[24]The Claimant, an experienced HR professional, started work for the Respondent as Head of Workforce Transformation and Planning on 16 November 2021. At very much the same time, Liz Rogers was appointed as the Respondent’s Deputy Director of People. She was, up until she took a secondment in March 2024, the Claimant’s line manager. The Claimant’s role[25]The Claimant’s job description indicated that her role was to lead and drive the development of transformational strategic plans to design a modernised workforce to meet the Respondent’s demand and performance requirements.[26]The job description also noted that the post-holder would be expected to be a role model for the Respondent’s agreed behaviours at all times. and would have direct line management responsibility for the Respondent’s Workforce Planning and Information Team. The precise number of employees managed by the Claimant at any one time was not fully explored in evidence, but she appeared generally to manage approximately six employees at various times.[27]The Claimant’s contract of employment noted that she was entitled to twelve weeks’ notice of employment, and also noted that that did not affect the right of either party to terminate the contract without notice by reason of the conduct of the other party. The Respondent’s policies and procedures[28]In terms of the expected behaviours, the Respondent had developed a set of ways of working and behaviours, which included the following; “Be inclusive of the whole Team”, “Show Belief in each other”, and “Respect others”.[29]The Respondent’s disciplinary policy and procedure contains a procedure for dealing with alleged misconduct, which caters for an initial assessment by the employee’s manager to determine the appropriate course of action. That could be: no further action, informal discussions, a fast-tracked disciplinary process, or a formal investigation.[30]Where a formal investigation is to be undertaken, an investigating officer is appointed to undertake a full investigation, and that person is normally appointed from a different department. The investigation officer does not make any judgments, and only produces a factual report.[31]The investigation report is then considered by a disciplining officer, again someone normally appointed from a different department, who makes a decision within 10 working days about the appropriate course of action. If that is to proceed to a disciplinary hearing, documentation is to be provided to the employee at least 21 calendar days before the hearing. Any additional information the employee wishes to rely on is to be provided at least 10 days prior to the hearing.[32]The disciplinary policy includes an appendix containing examples of misconduct, serious misconduct and gross misconduct. In the last category are included, “Unacceptable Behaviour - towards staff, patients, visitors or public in the course of work on Trust premises”, and, “Failure to Meet Required Standards - Gross failure to meet required standards of performance and behaviour as expected within the employee’s role and responsibilities”.[33]In the event of dismissal, the disciplinary policy provides for an appeal and the appointment of an appeal officer. The policy notes that the “officers nominated to hear an appeal must not have been involved in the disciplinary process at any earlier point”. Issues in the workplace[34]The matter of concern which ultimately led to the instigation of disciplinary processes and the Claimant’s dismissal was raised by Paola Spiteri following a Teams conversation she had with the Claimant on Friday 22 March 2024. The following week, whilst on annual leave and after speaking to colleagues, Ms Spiteri reported her concerns about that conversation to the Respondent’s Director, Angie Lewis. Ms Lewis then referred Ms Spiteri to Ms Rogers and they spoke on 3 April 2024.[35]Ms Spiteri reported two calls with the Claimant which she described as having left her anxious and upset and thinking of resignation. Ms Rogers asked her to record the detail of the calls and told her to take the rest of the day off.[36]Later, on 3 April 2024, Miss Rogers had a scheduled meeting with the Claimant. During that, Ms Rogers raised the conversation the Claimant had had with Ms Spiteri and that Ms Spiteri had been distressed by it. The conversation was covertly recorded by the Claimant and the transcript largely coincided with the note taken of the call by Ms Rogers.[37]Ms Spiteri then produced a note of her calls with the Claimant. In relation to the call on 18 March 2024, Ms Spiteri reported as follows: “A call took place with my line manager on Teams to clarify. I started to go through all the reasons and solutions with D. U-C, which she answered that she knew all this, when I got to the part where I explained why L.R was supporting me, this is when D. U-C toned changed and became faster and more frustrated. I was informed that L.R was ‘taking control and interfering’ that D. U-C was ‘sick of the constant and blatant disrespect’ (this was repeated many times). That D. U-C was not happy about this and is going to talk about this to L.R. She continued to become more agitated and louder repeating that she will not be disrespected like this. I tried to inform her the rational of why we had taken this approach, and that other Health Boards were following suit. She continued to talk over me saying this was the wrong approach that she did not agree and that she was going to get the Director of People and Culture involved, and that she my line manager was over seeing my work and wanted L.R to stop interfering. I found myself apologising and after the call had finished, I felt shocked and upset, I did not contact D. U-C again and tried to keep my head belong the firing line until I had a meeting next with her.”[38]In relation to the call on 22 March 2024, Ms Spiteri reported as follows: “In the call I started to explain the next steps, D. U-C immediately said ‘No!’ That is wrong, I do not agree, it needs to be done this way (and started to say her thoughts) this was again done in a tone that was louder faster and extremely frustrated. I started to again explain the reasoning, again she talked over me. She said she oversees my workload, this is disrespectful, she is sick of the disrespect she has to put up with. I tried to say I have to follow my directors support and advice I cannot ignore her views, D. U-C become louder and more agitated, she told me that if the Director of People and Culture was going to tell me what to do I should answer to her, that she is sick of all this disrespect and if the Director of People and Culture wanted to become SRO she could, that D. U-C would no longer line manage my work. I could stay within the team, but I will not be support by herself. I started to try and apologise but she talked over me saying she had another call and then she hung up the Teams call while I was still talking. The call lasted just over 5 minutes, I was left extremely shaken and upset, I was just told she was taking away my support and that I was not really in the team anymore. This was just after 4pm on the Friday and I was just about to start my week annual leave and I had no idea if I had a team to come back to.”[39]Ms Rogers had a further Teams call with the Claimant on 5 April 2024. In that, she confirmed that she felt the matter was serious enough for her to consider undertaking an initial assessment under the Respondent’s disciplinary policy, and that she would confirm whether that was going to happen in the next few days.[40]Ms Rogers and the Claimant met again on 11 April 2024 for an initial assessment meeting, and, following that meeting, Ms Rogers completed the initial assessment form, noting that she felt that a formal investigation was required.[41]The initial assessment form has a section asking about similar issues: “Has a similar issue occurred before with this employee? Is there anything recorded on file? Please note this only includes informal discussions and live warnings, spent warnings must not be taken into account.”. In that section of the form Miss Rogers recorded: “Yes. There are three previous situations with three separate team members which are very similar to this incident in that there are allegations about [the Claimant’s] management style and approach leading to colleagues being concerned and upset about the way that they are being managed and treated. The themes are similar and related to the management style being demonstrated. Control - not being able to go to a more senior manager directly for a conversation about a work related subject. Inappropriate treatment - the way they were talked to – angry, raised voice, talking over colleagues, intimidating so the team member did not feel safe. Disrespect issue - allegations of team members being disrespectful because they had talked to others or with a more senior manager and Failure to take on board the view of the colleague - not listening to what the team member is saying/advising and it needing to be [the Claimant’s] approach only. Failure to adhere to [the Respondent’s] behaviours and values - in the way team members have been communicated with.”[42]It transpired that the three incidents referred to by Ms Rogers related to two former employees, Mr Vo-Hughes and Simone Houlbrooke, and one current employee, Ms Phillips.[43]In the case of Mr Vo-Hughes, he had had a concern regarding the way the Claimant had informed him that he had been successful in his appointment for his role on a permanent basis, a concern also subsequently raised by Ms Spiteri in relation to her appointment.[44]Of most concern to Mr Vo-Hughes however, was the way the Claimant spoke to him in October 2022, following a presentation he had made during a meeting relating to a project being worked on. It transpired that the Claimant had disagreed with the proposal, and she called Mr Vo-Hughes the following day. Mr Vo-Hughes reported that the Claimant had been critical of him during the conversation, raising concerns about his behaviour and that he had not followed her instructions. He noted that he felt that his character was being attacked.[45]There were no contemporaneous notes of the call, but there was an email exchange between Mr Vo-Hughes and the Claimant in the bundle on the day of the call.[46]That exchange was initiated by the Claimant who noted that she was really worried about the Claimant’s reaction, and that she needed to check if it was because of his work or events outside work. She went on to note that Mr VoHughes’s comments about her being unable to know what he did or to understand his work fully were a bit undermining.[47]Mr Vo-Hughes responded by stating that he had been extremely hurt at the way that the Claimant had handled the call, and that the reason she had called was to call him out on behaviour she had not liked at the meeting. He further noted that he was disappointed that the Claimant had not checked his environment (he was in an open plan office), nor had she given any prior indication that she wished to discuss the matter. He then explained his perspective on the meeting the previous day, and responded to another criticism of him that the Claimant had made during the call. He concluded by saying that, although he was dealing with difficult personal matters, the reason for his reaction had been the Claimant’s approach. He commented that he had never been made to feel that way in the 16 years of his employment with the Respondent, and that he was disappointed that it had come to that under the Claimant’s management.[48]The Claimant then replied in a terse email saying, “The issue of my management and how people have been made to feel or not to feel should really be piped down now.”, and, “Right now I need you to put a cap on this now because this is taking us no place.”.[49]Following those exchanges, Mr Vo-Hughes spoke to Ms Rogers, who suggested he meet with the Claimant to discuss the issues, offering to attend, which Mr Vo-Hughes felt would not be the best way forward.[50]Whilst a meeting between the Claimant and Mr Vo Hughes did take place, it did not prove productive, and Mr Vo-Hughes was then absent from work due to ill health for some three months, returning in January 2023. At his request, his line management was then changed to Ms Rogers, and his contact with the Claimant was therefore limited. He then left the Respondent to work for another NHS organisation in January 2024.[51]Ms Houlbrooke did not give evidence during this hearing, but she did give evidence to Ms Smith during the disciplinary investigation. From the documentary evidence it appeared to me that there had not been a particularly good relationship between the Claimant and Miss Houlbrooke, possibly because Miss Houlbrooke had had designs on the role that the Claimant had been appointed to.[52]Her particular point of concern however, related to the way the Claimant had spoken to her during a team away day in May 2022. Mr Vo-Hughes had been present, and discussed the incident in his witness statement.[53]There was a difference of view between the Claimant and Ms Houlbrooke about the group discussion that had taken place, with the Claimant describing that Ms Houlbrooke had been deliberately obstructive, and with Ms Houlbrooke describing that she had been asking questions to get clarity about roles and objectives as she had only just returned from maternity leave. Mr Vo-Hughes largely supported Ms Houlbrooke’s version of events, noting that she had asked probing but valid questions about the team’s remit.[54]Regardless of the content of the group discussion and who may have been at fault, the Claimant then took Ms Houlbrooke outside and had what seems to have been a tense discussion with her. Mr Vo-Hughes reported that whilst the discussion was outside the team area, it was in full view of the team through a window, and it had clearly involved a telling off by the Claimant with the dynamic resembling a parent/child interaction.[55]Ms Houlbrooke left the Respondent to take up a role with another NHS organisation in November 2022, and described that she had (in my words not hers) “kept her head down”, in subsequent meetings, although she did agree, both in an interview with Ms Rogers at the time she left and in her interview with Ms Smith, that her relationship with the Claimant had improved somewhat in the time before she left.[56]With regard to Ms Phillips, the matter of concern revolved around a video meeting in July 2023, at which Ms Rogers, the Claimant and Ms Phillips had been present, and during which Ms Phillips had discussed the workforce plan and priorities.[57]The evidence of Ms Phillips and Ms Rogers on one side and the Claimant on the other suggested that the parties had been at cross purposes with regard to the content of the meeting. Ms Phillips and Ms Rogers were of the view that they were discussing the plan simply as an exemplar for how it could be adopted in other parts of the organisation. The Claimant was of the view that the plan itself and how it was to be taken forward was being discussed.[58]Regardless of that, the evidence in the form of Ms Phillips’s interview with Ms Smith and her witness statement for this hearing, and in the form of Ms Rogers’ contemporaneous file note, was that the Claimant had been very critical of Ms Phillips, accusing her of being disrespectful by working with Ms Rogers at things and not working with her.[59]Following that meeting Ms Phillips changed the way she worked and took steps to ensure that confrontations with the Claimant did not occur, in her words, “keeping her head down”, and making sure that the Claimant had no cause to complain about her again.”.[60]In addition to making notes of her discussions with Ms Houlbrooke and Ms Phillips, Ms Rogers had made a note of her discussions with the Claimant in relation to the three employees concerned, questioning whether the issues had arisen due to the Claimant’s management style. Ultimately Ms Mills, as the Disciplining Officer, concluded that, on balance, the interchanges with the three employees had taken place as described. On balance, I reached the same view. The Claimant’s complaint[61]Returning to the initial assessment process, the day following their discussion on 11 April 2024, the Claimant sent an email to Ms Lewis raising concerns about the conduct of the Respondent, in particular the conduct of Ms Rogers. She noted that over the previous two years she had experienced a consistent pattern of behaviour from Ms Rogers that had left her deeply troubled and concerned for both her wellbeing and the integrity of the workplace environment. She commented that, despite her best efforts to address those issues personally, they persisted, and she was left with no choice but to bring the matter to Ms Lewis’s attention. She commented that, as a member of the black minority ethnic community, it was an unfortunate reality that they faced various barriers and constraints both within and outside the workplace on a daily basis, and that whilst it was widely recognised that individuals may harbour biases based on race or other protected characteristics it was imperative that the workplace remained free from such prejudices. She further commented that, despite those expectations she had found herself repeatedly battling against those constraints for over two years, particularly from the same individual who happened to be her line manager, i.e. Ms Rogers.[62]At around the same time, the document is dated 9 April 2024, but it is not clear when it was sent to the Respondent, the Claimant produced a 28 page document entitled, “Case of Racial Discrimination Brought Against Liz Rogers”. Ultimately the Claimant’s complaints against Ms Rogers were not upheld. The disciplinary investigation[63]Ms Rogers wrote to the Claimant formally on 16 April 2024 with the initial assessment outcome. She noted that a disciplining officer and an investigation officer would be appointed shortly.[64]Trish Mills was appointed as the Disciplining Officer and she wrote to the Claimant on 22 March 2024. She noted that a formal disciplinary investigation would be undertaken into two allegations: “Allegation 1: You displayed unacceptable behaviours to PS at reported incident on 22.03.2024. Allegation 2: You have failed to adhere to WAST behaviours and values as a senior manager in the organisation, noting a pattern of behaviours.”[65]Ms Mills noted that Kathryn Smith had been appointed as the Investigating Officer, and would contact her to arrange an interview.[66]Ms Mills then issued terms of reference to Ms Smith for that investigation. With those, Ms Mills provided the initial assessment and her letter of 16 April 2024, Ms Spiteri’s notes of the two calls, and the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy. It was suggested that Ms Smith would need to interview Ms Spiteri, the Claimant and Ms Rogers.[67]Ms Smith wrote to the Claimant on 24 April 2024, confirming her appointment as Investigating Officer and arranging an interview on 13 May 2024. Prior to that meeting, Ms Smith met with Ms Spiteri on 3 May 2024, and with Ms Rogers on 7 May 2024. Ms Smith then subsequently, between 14 and 24 May 2024, met with all the other members of the Claimant’s team and the two, Mr Vo-Hughes and Ms Houlbrooke who had left, who had raised concerns about the Claimant’s behaviour towards them.[68]Ms Smith then produced her Investigation Report on 5 June 2024. In that she outlined her findings in relation to the two allegations. She identified what she called several recurring themes which she described as follows; “- Reluctance and lateness by [the Claimant] of approving Annual Leave, making it difficult for staff to plan events etc. - Inconsistent 1:1s - often cancelled and not rearranged, ad-hoc touching base only. - Team meetings - staff made to feel uncomfortable. Welfare check at the end of meeting was meaningless and staff felt it was a tick box effort. - PADR’s - meaningless and inconsistent. No set objectives. No objectives set on commencement of posts. - Leadership style – [The Claimant] did not like to be challenged, very autocratic style. Very one-sided hierarchy. - Race - a common strand through this investigation. [The Claimant] began her witness interview referring to her colour and that of another colleague who had left the organisation, due to what she believed was racism in [the Respondent]. During her interview [the Claimant] openly accused [Ms Rogers] of racism towards her, however referred to [Mr Vo-Hughes] as a privileged white male”.”.[69]Ms Smith also included a concluding section to her report noting those common themes, and noting, with regard to Allegation 1, that both parties recalled the incident differently, and, as there were no other witnesses present, the investigation was unable to substantiate the allegation. She noted further, however, that there was a pattern of behaviour evident throughout the investigation which demonstrated inappropriate behaviour and autocratic leadership.[70]Ms Smith also noted, with regard to Allegation 2, that the investigation suggested that there was indeed a pattern of behaviour evident which did not adhere to the Respondent’s behaviours and values. She noted that six of the witnesses interviewed provided personal examples that clarified the allegation, balanced against one witness who had observed this behaviour, and another who had not experienced or observed the behaviour. She commented that evidence was clearly outlined in the body of the report and in each witness statement she attached.[71]Following receipt of the Investigation Report, Ms Mills wrote to the Claimant, on 21 June 2024, noting that the allegations would proceed to a disciplinary hearing. Ms Mills then wrote again to the Claimant, on 4 July 2024, informing her that a disciplinary hearing would be held on 30 July 2024 to consider the allegations of: “- The behaviours and management style of [the Claimant], particularly referencing a meeting with [Ms Spiteri] on 22 March 2024. - Whether there had been a failure to adhere to [the Respondent’s] behaviours and values as a Senior Manager in the organisation noting a pattern of behaviours.”[72]In the letter, Ms Mills confirmed that a possible outcome of the hearing could be dismissal, and that the Claimant had the right to be accompanied by a union representative or work colleague. The Claimant’s grievance about the disciplinary process[73]Following receipt of that letter the Claimant sent an email to Ms Lewis, on 4 July 2024, raising a grievance about the disciplinary process. She noted that it had taken Ms Rogers about a week to get back to her with a decision on the initial assessment, when she felt that the due process would have been to have given the outcome following the initial assessment meeting. She noted that her specific concerns were: “1. Prejudiced process: [Ms Rogers], prior to the initial assessment meeting, made comments indicating she would conduct the initial assessment while someone else would oversee the disciplinary hearing. This suggests that outcomes may have been predetermined, undermining my confidence in the fairness of the process and the necessity of the disciplinary hearing. 2. Insufficient Information: I was not provided with detailed information regarding the allegations against me prior to the initial assessment and investigations... 3. Inadequate Documentation: Every stage of the disciplinary process should produce documentation. While I have reviewed the investigation discussions, I have not yet received the written documentation of the initial assessment. This prevents me from confirming the accuracy of what was said by both parties during the meeting.[74]Ms Lewis was on leave when the grievance was received, and wrote to the Claimant on 17 July 2024, suggesting that they meet the following week. The two then met on 24 July 2024, and Ms Lewis then sent an email to the Claimant on 29 July 2024 with her response to the grievance.[75]Ms Lewis accepted that the Claimant should have received a far timelier communication of the outcome of the initial assessment. She did not however, accept that Ms Rogers’s indication that the matter could lead to disciplinary action indicated any prejudgment. She further noted that the Claimant would by then have received all documentation, and that she could raise any concerns about any delay in receiving it at the disciplinary hearing. She similarly noted that the Claimant could raise any concerns about Ms Rogers’s interference in the investigation and Ms Smith’s approach at the disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing[76]As I have noted, the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy requires the employee facing disciplinary action to provide any additional information on which they wish to rely at least 10 days prior to the hearing. In this case that required the Claimant to provide that additional information by 20 July 2024. However, the Claimant only provided her statement of case for the hearing to Ms Mills on the afternoon of Friday 26 July 2024. She did that by way of inserting a link to the document in an email, but that required the sender, i.e. the Claimant, to give access to the document. Ms Mills requested access within minutes of receiving the email, but access was not provided until the following Monday, 29 July 2024, the day before the hearing. Ms Mills was then further not able to review it on that day, as she was away at a team away day, and she did not review the document until the day of the hearing.[77]The disciplinary hearing took place as scheduled on 30 July 2024. The Claimant was present and was assisted by her trade union representative. Ms Mills was supported by an HR Manager, with a notetaker also present. Ms Smith was present to present her investigation report. Whilst, as I have noted, the Claimant was assisted by her trade union representative she only met with him shortly before the hearing started. She did not however seek to delay the hearing because of that.[78]At the start of the hearing, Ms Mills outlined the procedure she would follow. She noted that Ms Smith would outline her report, and that the Claimant and/or her trade union representative could then speak to put forward mitigation. She further noted that she had not read the Claimant’s statement of case as she had not been able to open it. She commented that she had questions for the Claimant. She also noted that the Claimant had the right to ask witnesses to attend the hearing, but that none were present, and therefore the evidence of those seven witnesses, who she named, would be taken as read. Ms Mills further commented that Ms Smith would have an opportunity to restate the key points of the case and she would then adjourn to reach her decision, although she may need more information to do that.[79]During this hearing, the Claimant disputed what Ms Mills had said about witness statements. Ms Mills had indicated that she had read from a script at that stage of the hearing and the script read: “You had the right to ask the witnesses who provided statements to attend today but you have not sought for them to be here, so we will take the evidence as read. For clarity and the record, the statements of which you have received a copy include those from…” and then she named the eight witnesses.[80]The notes of the disciplinary hearing record, “You have the right to ask witnesses to attend the hearing, there are none present so we will take their evidence as read. Statements from the Claimant and …” and the names of seven witnesses, one was missing, were then recorded.[81]In my view there was little material difference between the two versions. The important element was that it was clear that the named witnesses were not going to be present and that their evidence was therefore to be taken as read. To the extent that there was any difference however, I considered it more likely that the version set out in Ms Mills’ script would be accurate. As a script had been prepared, I considered it likely that Ms Mills would then have read from it and would not have deviated. I also noted that the notetaker, whilst taking a comprehensive note, was not taking a verbatim note, which would have been very difficult to do without shorthand, and it would not therefore have been surprising that she left words out here and there, and only recorded the core words used.[82]The disciplinary hearing then followed the proposed structure. When it came to the Claimant’s turn to put forward her representations, she indicated that she wanted to put her statement of case on screen and to talk through it. Ms Mills did not consider that that would be an appropriate step as she had not read the statement of case at that point, and she instead suggested that the Claimant talk through the document without it being shown on screen, which is what happened.[83]The Claimant’s statement of case was comprehensive, and provided the Claimant’s response to the statements put forward by the witnesses who had been critical of her in terms of their interactions with her. However, despite its length, the Claimant’s statement of case did not appear to address the core issues of concern, other than those raised by Ms Spiteri covered in Allegation 1. In my view, that may well have been due to the rather diffuse nature of Allegation 2, which did not provide specific detail of the ways in which it was contended that the Claimant had failed to adhere to the Respondent’s behaviours and values, which may have left the Claimant with little alternative other than to try to pick the areas of concern out from the witness statements.[84]However, when the Claimant did pick out the areas of concern in her statement of case, to my mind, she appeared to focus more on peripheral matters than core ones. For example, where there were criticisms of the way the Claimant had behaved during calls, her statement focused more on the subject matter of the calls, and why the Claimant had considered it to be wrong or inappropriate, rather than the way that she had acted and reacted during the call, which was the key matter under consideration.[85]After approximately an hour and a half the hearing was adjourned for lunch, and Ms Mills suggested that the Claimant focus on the patterns of behaviour that she had identified. She referenced assertions that staff were saying that the Claimant toyed with them and humiliated them, that at least two employees appeared to have left because of her, that the Claimant had been indiscreet about other employees, and had a parent/child leadership style. She also suggested the Claimant provide more by way of mitigation.[86]The meeting then continued for a further two hours before concluding. Ms Mills indicated that she was not going to reach a decision on that day as she did not want to rush it.[87]Following the hearing, messages were exchanged between Ms Mills and the HR Adviser about speaking to some of the witnesses, which the HR Advisor pushed back on as being inappropriate. Ultimately, no further interviews took place.[88]On Thursday 1 August 2024, Ms Mills emailed the Claimant to indicate that, whilst she had hoped to reach a decision that week, i.e. by the following day, Friday 2 August, she needed more time to consider the evidence, and was on leave until Tuesday 6 August. She asked the Claimant’s agreement to an extension to Thursday 8 August 2024, which the Claimant confirmed by email on Monday 5 August.[89]In terms of the preparation of the outcome letter, the HR Adviser prepared a template response on 31 July 2024, and sent it to Ms Mills. In her email, the Adviser noted that she felt that the allegations fell under serious misconduct, and that the sanction should be a written warning.[90]Discussions then took place between Ms Mills, the HR Adviser, and Ms Lewis on 31 July and 1 August 2024. Ms Mills then went through the Claimant’s statement of case and marked up a number of comments on it. She also prepared notes for herself on the evidence she had read and heard, and how it appeared to show that the Respondent’s behaviours had been infringed. Ms Mills also summarised for herself the mitigation that the Claimant had put forward, and analysed the possible sanction she could impose, including what possible action short of dismissal could be taken. The Claimant’s further grievance[91]In the meantime, on 1 August 2024, the Claimant sent an email to Jason Killins, raising a grievance under the Respondent’s Respect and Resolution Policy. She raised six specific concerns. First, that there had been an undue delay in releasing the outcome of the initial assessment. Secondly, that Ms Rogers had refused to share the complaint with her, which meant that she had gone into the preliminary stages not knowing what she was defending herself against. Thirdly, that Ms Rogers had also refused to share her notes on the day to enable her to refute or agree to her summary. Fourthly, what she described as the most troubling aspect of the recent disciplinary process, was the heavy reliance on hearsay without supporting facts or corroborating evidence. Fifthly, that there had been a lack of cultural sensitivity on all sides. Lastly, that one of the allegations had been failure to adhere to Trust behaviours, yet not one behaviour had been highlighted in evidence provided to buttress that point.[92]Mr Killins replied on the same day, noting that he would consider the Claimant’s email fully in the coming days and get back to her. He wrote to the Claimant further on 2 August 2024, confirming that he was on leave until 19 August and would not be able to consider the issues raised by the Claimant until then. No further direct steps were taken to respond to the Claimant’s grievance, as it was considered as part of her subsequent appeal against dismissal, which was dealt with by Mr Killins. The disciplinary decision[93]Ms Mills completed her outcome letter and sent it to the Claimant by email and by post on 8 August 2024. She noted her conclusions that, on balance of probability both allegations had been proven. She noted as follows: “With respect to allegation 1, whilst both yourself and Paola Spiteri recall some of the facts of the incident differently, I have found this allegation proven on the balance of probabilities.”. “With regard to allegation 2, I have found this allegation proven on balance of probabilities. The evidence provided demonstrated a pattern of behaviour which is unacceptable and does not adhere to WAST behaviours and values.”[94]Ms Mills then explained her conclusions on those points, on the Claimant’s mitigation, and on possible alternatives to dismissal. She noted that she had found that there were serious and sustained patterns of unacceptable behaviour that were contrary to the Respondent’s behaviours, and also to what was expected of a senior manager within the Respondent organisation and particularly within the People and Culture Directorate.[95]She further noted that she accepted the findings of the Investigation Officer that Ms Rogers had had opportunities to manage things earlier to mitigate the concerns raised on behalf of the team, but that she also noted that there was evidence provided which included file notes from Ms Rogers related to conversations with the Claimant in November 2022 and July 2023 regarding her management style and behaviour.[96]She commented that, from reviewing the witness statements, it was evident to her that the impact on the current and former members of the team had been profound. Two had left the team, some had felt the need to take sick leave because of the impact on them of the Claimant’s behaviour, and witnesses had recounted being in tears by her behaviour, and more than one indicated they have never been treated in that manner before in their careers.[97]She went on to note that she felt that the Claimant’s relationship with Ms Rogers had irretrievably broken down, and that, similarly, her relationship with her team had broken down. She also observed that, given the fact that so many witnesses had demonstrated a pattern of behaviour, she was not convinced that the Claimant would be able to change her leadership style to positively impact on the team.[98]She concluded that, considering everything, including mitigations, she had found the Claimant’s actions to be gross misconduct in accordance with the All Wales Disciplinary Policy under Gross Misconduct sections 12 & 19, i.e. Unacceptable Behaviour - towards, staff, patients, visitors or public in the course of work or on Trust premises, and, Failure to Meet Required Standards - Gross failure to meet required standards of performance and behaviour as expected within the employee’s role and responsibilities.[99]She noted that a finding of gross misconduct brought with it a sanction of dismissal or action short of dismissal, and that she had considered the latter, but had not seen sufficient evidence that the Claimant would have been able to repair the relationships within the team and her line management, or to change her management style such that she would have been prepared to recommend that as reasonable in all the circumstances. Therefore, her decision was that the Claimant be immediately dismissed. The Claimant’s appeal[100]Ms Mills concluded her letter by noting the Claimant’s right to appeal, and the Claimant submitted her appeal by email the following day, 9 August 2024. She noted five grounds of appeal. “1. Discrepancies in Evidence Consideration 2. Insufficient Weight Given to Mitigating Factors 3. Late Submission of My Statement of Case 4. Pattern of Behaviour Allegations 5. Breakdown in Professional Relationships”[101]On 23 August 2024, a letter was sent to the Claimant by the Respondent’s Deputy Head of People Services, noting that the appeal hearing would take place on 24 September 2024. The letter noted that the appeal would not be a re-hearing of the original evidence, but would consider specifically whether the disciplinary action decided upon had been fair and reasonable. The letter noted that the appeal panel would comprise Mr Killins and Sue Green, Director of NHS Wales Employers, that Ms Mills, the Disciplining Officer would be present and that a notetaker from HR would also be present.[102]The Claimant subsequently raised concerns about the involvement of Sue Green, as there was an indication that she had had some discussions with Ms Mills at the disciplinary stage around the Claimant’s statement of case in the absence of other senior HR employees. The Claimant contended that that infringed the section in the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy which stated that the officers nominated to hear an appeal must not have been involved in the disciplinary process at any earlier point. However, I noted that that related to officers hearing an appeal, which in this case was Mr Killins; Ms Green was only there to assist. In any event Ms Green’s prior involvement had been very limited, to the point of immateriality.[103]The appeal hearing took place as scheduled, with the Claimant this time being unrepresented, which she confirmed had been her choice. The Claimant first spoke to her grounds of appeal, and was then asked questions by the panel. Ms Mills then went through a written justification of her decision which she had prepared, and questions were asked of her. The appeal decision[104]Following the hearing, Mr Killins then issued his decision letter on 4 October 2024. In that, he responded to the Claimant’s grounds of appeal. He noted that, in coming to his decision, he had noted that there were some areas for improvement on the part of the Respondent in managing the investigation prior to the disciplinary hearing taking place, and that there had been some areas when local leadership could have been more proactive, specifically in relation to the Claimant’s line management. However, he was of the view that neither of those issues was sufficiently significant to undermine the objectivity and reasonableness of the original decision to dismiss the Claimant. He observed that that was especially the case as the Claimant was a senior manager and should, with regard to her your behaviour, have known better.[105]Mr Killens concluded his letter by saying that, after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Claimant’s appeal against dismissal was rejected and the decision to dismiss her for reasons of gross misconduct was upheld.
Conclusions
[106]Taking into account my findings and the relevant legal principles, my conclusions on the issues I had to determine were as follows. Unfair dismissal[107]I first had to consider the reason for dismissal, and whether the Respondent had established conduct as the reason.[108]I was satisfied that it had. The Claimant did not raise any substantive concerns that the conduct was not the reason for dismissal. She did make some suggestions that the issues could have been described as matters of capability rather than conduct, but I was satisfied that the Respondent was entitled to view matters relating to the Claimant’s behaviour as matters relating to her conduct.[109]The Claimant also suggested at times that she felt that Ms Rogers may have been motivated to pursue matters against her due to their difficult relationship. However, regardless of any relationship difficulties, and for the avoidance of doubt, I did not consider that Ms Rogers acted with any malign motive, she was a relatively small cog in the disciplinary wheel. She received Ms Spiteri’s complaint and, with the knowledge she had of other similar concerns, decided that all should be taken forward through a disciplinary investigation. That was a decision that was, in my view, clearly open to her in the circumstances.[110]Matters were then taken forward by entirely independent managers. Ms Smith, who was, in fact, independent from the entire organisation, undertook the investigation, and her investigation report gave clear grounds for proceeding to a disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing was then undertaken by Ms Mills, an entirely unconnected manager, and the appeal decision was taken by Mr Killins, the Chief Executive. Overall I saw nothing to suggest that the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was anything other than her conduct.[111]I then moved to consider whether dismissal for that reason was fair in all the circumstances, noting that my role was not to substitute my decision for that of the employer, and was not to assess whether the employer had made the correct decision, only whether the decision it reached was one a reasonable employer acting reasonably could have reached.[112]Applying the Burchell test I was satisfied, for very much the same reasons as informed my conclusions in relation to the reason for dismissal, that the Respondent had genuinely believed that the Claimant had committed misconduct. As I have noted, there did not seem to be any ulterior or malign motive behind the Respondent’s conclusions, and entirely independent managers, including one from outside the Respondent organisation, dealt with the various stages of the disciplinary process.[113]I then considered the adequacy of the investigation, again noting that I had to assess it within the parameters of the range of reasonable responses. I was satisfied that the scope of the investigation was clearly within that range. The terms of reference for Ms Smith initially suggested that she would need to interview Ms Spiteri, Ms Rogers and the Claimant, which she did. Her investigation then threw up broader concerns regarding the Claimant’s interactions with others, and she interviewed all members of the Claimant’s team, and the two former members of the team who had left but who had reported difficulties with the Claimant.[114]Ms Smith then put her report together taking account of all the evidence reported to her, which included evidence from two employees who reported that they themselves had nothing other than a good relationship with the Claimant, albeit one had observed issues with the Claimant’s interactions with others.[115]I noted that the Claimant herself, whilst noting in her witness statement that key witnesses who could have supported her case were not interviewed, confirmed, during this hearing, that there was no one else who could have had any relevant evidence.[116]I was also then satisfied that that investigation had given reasonable grounds for the Respondent’s conclusions that the Claimant had committed gross misconduct. The evidence of the witnesses was clear and consistent, and in some respects was supported by contemporaneous documents, such as Ms Rogers’ file notes and the email exchange between the Claimant and Mr VoHughes. I considered therefore that the Burchell test was made out.[117]I then moved to consider procedural matters, and I was satisfied that the requirements of the ACAS Code were broadly complied with. I did have some misgivings about the adequacy of the Respondent’s provision of information to the Claimant to enable her to answer the case at the disciplinary hearing.[118]As I have noted, Allegation 1, the issue regarding Ms Spiteri, was adequately set out, referencing the specific discussion on 22 March 2024. However, Allegation 2 was expressed much more generally, “Whether there has been a failure to adhere to WAST behaviours and values as a senior manager in the organisation, noting a pattern of behaviour.”. In my view it would have been preferable for the specific failures to have been spelled out, even if only in broad categories, with some specific examples of concerns being raised.[119]However regardless of that, the Claimant received all the background evidence relating to the matters of concern, and was given a clear direction in the form of Ms Rogers’s initial assessment and Ms Mills’s outcome letter, of the areas of concern. I was therefore satisfied overall that the Claimant had had sufficient information to enable her to answer the case against her. She was then given adequate advance notice of the hearing, and given every opportunity during that hearing to explain herself.[120]I noted the Claimant’s concern that she had been unable to call witnesses to be questioned at the hearing, due to Ms Lewis having told her that she should have nothing to do with her team. No direct evidence was put before me as to whether Ms Lewis had given any such direction, although it struck me that a broad direction along those lines may have been likely to have been given in circumstances where the Claimant was focusing on a disciplinary hearing. I doubted however that such a comment would necessarily have led to the Claimant concluding that she was prohibited from contacting members of her team.[121]Beyond that however, the Claimant did not have to contact witnesses to ensure their attendance at the disciplinary hearing. Indeed it would not have been particularly appropriate for her to do so. The arrangements could, and should, have been expected to have been made by HR, and there did not seem to be any reason why the Claimant, as an experienced HR professional, albeit one without recent operational employee relations experience, should not have realised that she would need to require the attendance of witnesses if she wished to challenge their evidence.[122]Regardless of that, the Claimant did put forward her own views on the statements the witnesses provided, although, as I have noted, it did not, in my view, address the key aspects of their evidence insofar as they related to the allegations the Claimant faced.[123]The Claimant was then informed of the outcome of the hearing in a clear and comprehensive fashion by Ms Rogers, who also clearly explained her thinking in relation to the sanction she imposed. The Claimant was then given an opportunity to appeal the decision, and the appeal hearing was arranged with ample notice. The Claimant was able to air her concerns at the appeal hearing about the disciplinary process and decision, and Mr Killins provided a thorough response.[124]The Claimant raised two other specific procedural concerns on which comment is required. She noted that Ms Rogers had failed to inform her of the initial assessment outcome immediately, i.e. at their meeting on 11 April 2024.[125]Ms Stokes gave evidence by way of a summary of the Respondent’s disciplinary process, in which she noted that once the initial assessment has been completed the staff member should be informed immediately of the outcome. However, the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy and Procedure impose no such requirement, and only note that the procedure should be followed “with appropriate promptness”.[126]In my view, there was nothing improper in Ms Rogers informing the Claimant of the next steps some three working days after their meeting. The Claimant suffered no disadvantage from that. Indeed, I considered it would always have been to her advantage for time to have been taken for a full consideration of the next steps.[127]As I have noted, the Claimant also raised concerns about Sue Green’s involvement as support to Mr Killins at the appeal, when she had had some involvement at the disciplinary stage. As I have noted, the terms of the Disciplinary Policy only refer to the officers hearing the appeal being required not to not have had any prior involvement, which in this case applied to Mr Killins. However, even if the reference to officers should be taken to include the person supporting the decision maker, I did not consider that Ms Green’s very limited prior involvement impacted materially on her ability to support Mr Killins with the appeal.[128]I was therefore satisfied that overall all materially appropriate procedural steps were taken.[129]I turned finally to consider the sanction imposed and whether it was within the range of reasonable responses. I noted that the HR Adviser had suggested that a warning would be sufficient, and I could see that an employer, indeed this employer, when faced with this situation might have taken the view that a warning, most likely a final warning, could have been appropriate. However, I could not see any basis to conclude that the decision taken to dismiss the Claimant was outside the range of reasonable responses, i.e. was one which no reasonable employer acting reasonably could have reached.[130]The Claimant was a senior, experienced employee who faced serious allegations about her conduct which were found proven. In addition the evidence indicated to the Decision Maker, Ms Mills, that the Claimant’s relationship with her team was very severely, if not indeed irreparably, damaged. Ms Mills also explored other options such as redeployment, but concluded that none were appropriate.[131]Overall, I was therefore satisfied that the decision to dismiss the Claimant fell within the range of reasonable responses, and that the Claimant’s dismissal was therefore fair, such that her unfair dismissal complaint fell to be dismissed. Wrongful dismissal[132]My consideration of this complaint had to be approached quite differently. I was not assessing whether the Respondent’s actions were reasonable, but was assessing whether the Claimant had committed a repudiatory breach of contract, i.e. an act of gross misconduct such as to justify the Respondent treating the contract as at an end and summarily dismissing the Claimant.[133]As the Westwood case noted, that involved me considering both the character of the conduct and whether it was reasonable for the Respondent to regard that conduct as gross misconduct. That was something for me to consider objectively on the facts on the balance of probability.[134]The character of the conduct was, as noted by Ms Rogers in her outcome letter, that Sections 12 and 19 of the list of examples of gross misconduct in the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy had been made out. They were, “Unacceptable behaviour towards staff in the course of work”, and “Gross failure to meet required standards of behaviour as expected within the employee’s role and responsibilities”.[135]In that regard, I noted the evidence, which I concluded established, on balance of probability, that the Claimant’s conduct involved unjustified personal criticism of employees reporting to her, often in circumstances where the Claimant disagreed with what the employees were doing or saying, and where the Claimant viewed their actions or comments as something of a personal slight.[136]That behaviour in relation to Ms Spiteri in her discussions with the Claimant in March 2022, could, in my view, legitimately be described as humiliating and as having amounted to bullying. In my view that behaviour clearly fell within the confines of unacceptable behaviour towards staff in the course of work, and therefore amounted to gross misconduct.[137]I formed a similar conclusion in relation to the interactions with Mr VoHughes, Ms Houlbrooke and Miss Phillips. Viewing each of them in isolation, the Claimant’s conduct similarly involved excessive criticism, to the extent of humiliation, of those reporting to the Claimant.[138]Viewed in isolation I concluded that it may well have been difficult to categorise each of those interactions individually as gross misconduct as they were not formally addressed at the time. However, when considered together, in addition to the issues regarding Ms Spiteri, they again, in my view, involve unacceptable behaviour towards staff in the course of work, and again therefore amounted to gross misconduct. I was particularly conscious of the Claimant’s status as a senior employee, noting that the reference in the Respondent’s Policy to standards of behaviour was to those expected within the particular employee’s role and responsibilities.[139]Overall therefore, I was satisfied that the Claimant had committed acts of gross misconduct such as to justify her summary dismissal, and therefore her complaint of wrongful dismissal also fell to be dismissed. Authorised for issue by