Respondent won Employment Tribunal · 24 October 2022

Midwife dismissed for physically assaulting colleague: conduct dismissal upheld

A band 6 midwife with nine years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after an alleged physical assault on a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected claims of race discrimination and victimisation.

1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant was employed as a band 6 midwife from 13 August 2012 until dismissal on 12 January 2021.
  • On 26 August 2020, an incident occurred where the claimant was alleged to have physically assaulted a colleague (KB) by holding her wrist.
  • The respondent conducted an investigation and disciplinary hearing, concluding that the claimant had physically assaulted KB, amounting to gross misconduct.
  • The claimant was dismissed on 12 January 2021; her appeal was unsuccessful.
  • The claimant alleged unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, and victimisation, but the tribunal found no evidence of race being a factor.

Timeline

  1. Employment commenced

    Claimant started work as a band 6 midwife at Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust.

  2. Incident with Mrs Thomson

    Claimant alleged she was bullied by Mrs Thomson, a Band 7 Postnatal Lead Midwife, in front of colleagues.

  3. Meeting about bullying complaint

    Mrs Cruse met with Mrs Thomson, who admitted raising her voice and expressed regret.

  4. Incident with KB

    Claimant was involved in an incident with colleague KB, alleged to be a physical assault.

  5. Investigation meetings

    Mrs Cruse met separately with KB, Mrs Thomson, and the claimant to gather accounts.

  6. Investigation report finalised

    Mrs Cruse completed her report setting out five allegations against the claimant.

  7. Disciplinary hearing

    Ms Luhr conducted the disciplinary hearing; claimant was assisted by a GMB representative.

  8. Dismissal confirmed

    Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (physical assault).

  9. Appeal hearing

    Ms McVey heard the appeal and upheld the dismissal.

  10. Claim presented

    Claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.

The outcome

The tribunal dismissed all claims: unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, and victimisation.

  • The investigation and disciplinary process were found to be reasonable. The respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant had physically assaulted a colleague, based on witness accounts.
  • There was no evidence that race played any part in the decision to dismiss, nor that the claimant had been victimised for earlier complaints.
  • No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.

Lessons & takeaways

  • Employers can fairly dismiss for physical assault even when the employee denies it, provided there is a reasonable investigation and genuine belief in the misconduct.
  • Length of service does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal for gross misconduct, especially in safety-critical roles like healthcare.
  • Race discrimination claims require evidence that race was a factor; a disciplinary decision that appears harsh but is based on conduct will not succeed without that link.
  • Victimisation claims need a clear link between a protected act and a detriment; a later disciplinary action for separate misconduct will not automatically amount to victimisation.

This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for a single incident of physical assault, provided the employer carries out a proper investigation and genuinely believes the misconduct occurred. The midwife, who had nine years' service, was dismissed after an incident in which she was alleged to have held a colleague's wrist. The tribunal accepted that the trust's investigation was reasonable and that the decision-maker genuinely believed the assault had happened.

What could have been done differently?

The claimant argued that the investigation was flawed and that she had been treated unfairly because of her race. However, the tribunal found no evidence of racial bias. The trust followed its disciplinary procedure, gave the claimant an opportunity to respond, and considered her appeal. The key lesson for employers is that a thorough investigation and a clear rationale for the decision can withstand scrutiny, even when the employee disputes the facts.

Why this result matters

For employees, this case highlights the high bar for proving unfair dismissal in conduct cases. The tribunal does not substitute its own view for the employer's; it asks whether the employer acted within the 'range of reasonable responses'. Here, the trust's decision was considered reasonable given the nature of the allegation in a healthcare setting. The case also underscores that race discrimination and victimisation claims require solid evidence linking the treatment to the protected characteristic—mere suspicion or a feeling of unfairness is not enough.

Similar cases