Consultant surgeon dismissed for gross misconduct: conduct and discrimination claims fail
An employment tribunal dismissed all claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation brought by a consultant colorectal surgeon against Hywel Dda University Health Board following a lengthy disciplinary process.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #race-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #upsw-procedure
- #sexual-innuendo
- #intimidation
Key facts
- The claimant was a consultant colorectal surgeon employed by the respondent from December 2015.
- The claimant sent an email on 18 May 2016 alleging discrimination, which was circulated to 19 colleagues.
- The respondent commenced disciplinary proceedings under the Upholding Professional Standards in Wales (UPSW) procedure on 2 June 2016.
- The claimant was excluded from work on 17 October 2016 due to clinical concerns.
- An independent Inquiry Panel found multiple allegations of misconduct proved, including gross misconduct.
- The claimant was dismissed on 6 October 2020 for gross misconduct.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a consultant colorectal surgeon on a 10 PA per week contract.
-
Job plan dispute begins
The claimant sought to be paid for 11.5 PAs, but the respondent maintained the 10 PA contract.
-
Meeting about job plan
The claimant met with Mr Henwood and Mrs Lewis; he expressed dissatisfaction and requested escalation.
-
Claimant sent discrimination email
The claimant emailed 19 colleagues alleging discrimination and referencing Ms Singh.
-
A&E incident
The claimant was involved in a confrontation with nursing staff over a patient admission.
-
UPSW process initiated
Dr Kloer appointed Dr Edmunds as Case Manager to assess concerns about the claimant's conduct.
-
Claimant excluded from work
The claimant was suspended due to clinical concerns.
-
Investigation report completed
Dr Robertson-Steel submitted his report, recommending formal action on conduct allegations.
-
Inquiry Panel hearing
An independent panel heard evidence over five days.
-
Dismissal
The Disciplinary Panel dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, discriminated against on grounds of race, victimised, or wrongfully dismissed, and whether the respondent acted reasonably in its disciplinary process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims: unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, victimisation, and wrongful dismissal.
The key reason was that the Health Board had carried out a thorough investigation under the UPSW procedure, and the disciplinary panel's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found no evidence that race played any part in the treatment of the claimant, and that the victimisation claims were not well-founded.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A lengthy disciplinary process does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer follows a proper procedure and the delay is justified.
- Allegations of discrimination need to be supported by evidence of less favourable treatment on a protected ground; a belief of unfairness is not enough.
- Employers can rely on independent investigation reports and panel hearings to support a finding of gross misconduct, even if the employee disputes the allegations.
- Victimisation claims require a causal link between a protected act and detrimental treatment; mere proximity in time is insufficient.
A long-running dispute ends in dismissal
This case shows how a breakdown in working relationships, combined with serious conduct allegations, can lead to a lengthy disciplinary process and eventual dismissal. The consultant surgeon had been in post for less than a year when a dispute over his job plan escalated into allegations of discrimination and a series of confrontations with colleagues. The Health Board initiated proceedings under the Upholding Professional Standards in Wales (UPSW) procedure, which led to a full investigation and an independent inquiry panel.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal examined whether the Health Board had acted reasonably in dismissing the surgeon. It noted that the employer had followed a detailed process, including an independent investigation, a five-day inquiry panel hearing, and a disciplinary panel that considered the evidence carefully. The tribunal found that the employer genuinely believed the surgeon had committed gross misconduct, including sending an inappropriate email, making sexual innuendos, and intimidating colleagues. The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
Why the discrimination and victimisation claims failed
The surgeon also claimed that he had been discriminated against because of his race and victimised for raising a grievance. However, the tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the employer's actions. The treatment he received – including being excluded from work and eventually dismissed – was due to his conduct, not his race. The victimisation claims failed because there was no causal link between any protected act and the alleged detrimental treatment.
What this means for similar cases
This case highlights that employers can defend conduct dismissals if they follow a proper procedure and base their decision on a reasonable investigation. It also shows that discrimination claims require clear evidence of less favourable treatment on a protected ground. For employees, it is a reminder that raising a grievance does not give immunity from disciplinary action if there are genuine concerns about conduct.
Similar cases
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
Dismissed for gross misconduct: claim struck out as out of time and without merit
A former driver's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospects of success and were submitted late.
Customer assistant dismissed for gross misconduct: fair process despite delays
A Tesco customer assistant with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making racist comments, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of race discrimination and victimisation.
Residential support worker dismissed for attending work with possible COVID-19 symptoms: dismissal fair
A residential support worker was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after attending work while possibly having COVID-19 symptoms. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation.