The claimant commenced her employment, as a pharmacy assistant, in October 2017.  One of the directors of the respondent, Mr Shah, received an anonymous online complaint about his pharmacy.  The complaint centred upon how a customer was spoken to by a female member of staff but there were no details given which would identify the staff member.  This came through the NHS and Mr Shah did not respond until he was subsequently contacted for a response.  Mr Shah spoke to the pharmacist on the day in question.   This involved a telephone call the claimant had taken where the customer was being difficult and the claimant’s tone had been ‘raised’ slightly.  Overall, the pharmacist stated that she did not believe that the staff had done anything wrong on the days in question.

The pharmacist then brought the conversation up with the claimant as she was instructed.  The claimant felt that it was strange that it was centring upon the phone-call that week when there were other patients who had made complaints and that the complaint made the NHS was anonymous.  This led the claimant to send a message to Mr Shah whereupon there was an exchange the claimant felt was aggressive.  This led to a meeting then taking place with the Business Manager, Claimant and Mr Shah.

In terms of the meeting, minutes were produced for the Tribunal.   The claimant says that no minutes were taken during the meeting but the Business Manager stated that he typed them up straight after the meeting and that they were not taken during the meeting as he did not think it would have gone the way it did.  They discussed the exchange arising from the anonymous complaint.  This eventually led to both Mr Shah and the claimant raising their voices and shouting over one another.   Eventually Mr Shah informed the claimant to hand in her keys and leave.  He confirmed that it was her last day of work and she was no longer working for the respondent.  The respondent later suggested that the claimant had not been dismissed but this did not accord with the fact that the claimant was asked to hand in her keys.  The Tribunal found that the events on that day had led to a dismissal.  The respondent argued that the claimant submitting a fit note when she was subsequently asked to attend a disciplinary meeting did not demonstrate that she felt, either objectively or subjectively, still employed by the respondent.  As a result, the Tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.   This led to a total award of £9867.51.

Practical Lessons:

This case demonstrates the importance of not only ensuring that processes are put in place but that those who are in managerial positions, such as directors, remain calm in their interactions.  In this situation, it seems clear that the issue was that the director had become angry at being questioned how the anonymous complaint had been dealt with.  This escalated greatly with the claimant being told to leave.  This was not in keeping with any of the procedural requirements for a dismissal thus leading to the claimant being successful at the Tribunal. 
Miss M Yule v Health Hut Professionals Ltd: 2500453/2022 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)