The claimant worked as a staff nurse with the respondent at the State Hospital, Carstairs from 1994 until his dismissal on 4th February 2019.    The respondent is a special health board which runs high security hospitals in the UK.  The claimant worked on ‘Iona 2’ ward which is for intellectually disabled patients.

On 5th March 2018 there was an incident with Patient B who was not permitted to return to his room as he requested.   This led to the claimant and another being assaulted.  The patient was put into seclusion but it was ended later that day.   The claimant and other staff members, were dissatisfied with this decision especially considering that the patient had assaulted nursing staff.   The following day, there was a report filed from the Senior Charge Nurse on foot of finding the housekeeper, Ms McDougall, upset.   She stated that she observed a patient being assaulted by another but the staff did nothing to stop it.  The staff in question were the claimant and a nursing assistant.  The patients each stated that this had happened with patient ‘A’ stating that he was going to assault Patient B, but the nurse said ‘good’, and this surprised him because normally he would have been restrained or possibly secluded for such behaviours.  Another patient also stated that they had witnessed the assault and the claimant and the other staff member had done nothing.

The claimant was suspended from duty on the basis of the assault and his failure to respond. In the investigation, the claimant stated that he was not aware of the incident occurring and that he may have been out of the day room at the time when the alleged assault took place.  He further stated that pushing and shoving between patients was not an unusual occurrence. The claimant further asserted that there was a group of staff members who had a dislike for him and this had been seen with false reports that had been made in the past.   The conclusion of the investigation stated that considering the report was initially made by a member of staff it was unlikely that it had been invented or the patients had colluded in relation to the allegation.  For that reason, it was found that the claimant had failed in his duty to intervene and had acted in a way which would constitute gross misconduct.  A disciplinary panel was convened and after hearing the evidence it was found that the claimant had acted with gross misconduct and he was summarily dismissed without notice.  This was appealed internally but was dismissed.

The Tribunal expressly stated that it was not for them to make findings of fact in relation to what may or may not have occurred on 5th and 6th March 2018.  Instead, they examined the decision of the respondent and it was it was based upon a fair reason and was reasonable.  It was held that there was a fair reason, that being conduct.  On the issue of reasonableness there was an examination of the investigation and disciplinary procedure with the Tribunal finding that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses.  Accordingly, the case was dismissed.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-p-bradford-v-the-state-hospital-for-scotland-4107324-2019