Final written warning and restricted redeployment led to unfair dismissal
A plaster technician with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a disciplinary panel imposed a final written warning and redeployment, but an appeal panel restricted redeployment to non-clinical roles without consulting him. Tribunal awarded £22,335.09.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for misconduct after making inappropriate comments to patients and colleagues.
- The disciplinary panel found the misconduct did not justify dismissal but imposed a final written warning and redeployment.
- The appeal panel upheld the outcome but restricted redeployment to non-clinical roles without consulting the claimant.
- The tribunal found the trust conflated disciplinary and capability issues, making the dismissal unfair.
- The claimant was awarded £22,335.09 after reductions for Polkey and contributory conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a plaster technician/orthopaedic practitioner for the trust.
-
Sexual harassment complaint
Claire McNamara made a complaint of sexual harassment against the claimant; restrictions placed on his access to A&E.
-
Police no further action
Police informed the trust no further action would be taken regarding the complaint.
-
Disciplinary investigation started
Claimant was suspended and investigated for allegations of discriminatory behaviour made by Jessica Dua.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing held; claimant represented by union. Outcome: final written warning and redeployment.
-
Outcome letter
Claimant informed of final written warning and placed on redeployment register for 11 weeks.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal panel upheld redeployment but reduced warning to 2 years and restricted to non-clinical roles.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment terminated after failing to secure alternative post.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented unfair dismissal claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Liability hearing
Three-day hearing on liability; judgment reserved.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found dismissal unfair; Polkey and contributory reductions of 20% each applied.
-
Remedy hearing
Hearing on remedy; claimant sought reinstatement but was refused.
-
Remedy judgment
Final award of £22,335.09 made.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct was fair, and if not, what compensation should be awarded considering Polkey and contributory conduct reductions.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The disciplinary panel had imposed a final written warning and redeployment, but the appeal panel restricted redeployment to non-clinical roles without consulting the claimant, conflating disciplinary and capability issues. Compensation was reduced by 20% for Polkey (chance of dismissal even if fair) and 20% for contributory conduct.
- Basic award: £6,456.00
- Compensatory award: £15,879.09
- Polkey reduction: 20%
- Contributory reduction: 20%
- Total award: £22,335.09
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should not restrict redeployment options without consulting the employee, especially when the original disciplinary panel did not impose such restrictions.
- Conflating disciplinary and capability issues can render a dismissal unfair; each process should be kept separate.
- Long-serving employees (11 years) are entitled to a fair process, including proper consideration of alternative roles.
- Even if misconduct is proven, the sanction must be proportionate and based on the findings of the disciplinary panel, not altered on appeal without proper procedure.
This case shows how a well-intentioned disciplinary process can go wrong when an appeal panel changes the outcome without proper consultation. The claimant, a plaster technician with 11 years' service, made inappropriate comments to patients and colleagues. The disciplinary panel decided a final written warning and redeployment was sufficient, but the appeal panel restricted redeployment to non-clinical roles, effectively making the claimant unemployable within the trust. The tribunal found this was unfair because it mixed disciplinary and capability issues and denied the claimant a say in the redeployment process.
What could have been done differently
The trust could have avoided unfairness by ensuring the appeal panel did not impose new restrictions without consulting the claimant. If the panel believed redeployment should be limited, it should have sought the claimant's input and considered whether he could perform clinical roles with support. Alternatively, the trust could have kept the original decision and allowed the claimant to seek redeployment across all suitable roles.
Why this matters
The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in redeployment after misconduct. Employers must not unilaterally restrict options without discussion, especially when the employee has long service. The 20% Polkey reduction reflects that the claimant might have been dismissed anyway, but the 20% contributory reduction acknowledges his own conduct. The total award of £22,335.09 shows that even with reductions, unfair process can be costly.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed for sleeping on duty: employer's decision upheld
A security officer with 11 years' service was fairly dismissed after video evidence showed her apparently sleeping on duty. The tribunal upheld G4S's decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.
Control room team leader dismissed over hug and anti-Semitism allegations: unfair but compensation slashed
A tribunal found that MTR Elizabeth Line unfairly dismissed a control room team leader of 11 years over a hug and alleged anti-Semitic comments, but reduced compensation by 75% due to his own conduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Dismissed while hospitalised with sickle cell crisis: procedural failings made it unfair
A pharmacist with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Whittington Health NHS Trust after being refused an extension to her notice period while hospitalised with a sickle cell crisis. The tribunal found indirect disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, awarding £16,884.