Paramedic with 27 years' service dismissed for bullying: tribunal upholds decision
A London Ambulance Service paramedic who was dismissed for bullying colleagues after failing a mask fit test has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was thorough and the decision reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Ms Bignall was employed as a paramedic from 1 July 1996 until dismissal on 22 December 2021.
- She failed a fit test for an FFP3 mask in March 2020 and was designated as driver to avoid close patient contact.
- A disciplinary investigation in 2021 found she had bullied colleagues, leading to dismissal for gross misconduct.
- The tribunal found the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct after a thorough investigation.
- All claims (unfair dismissal, victimisation, detriment, unauthorised deductions) were dismissed.
- Ms Bignall was ordered to pay costs of £3,000 for unreasonably pursuing some claims.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Ms Bignall commenced employment as an Emergency Medical Technician, later becoming a Band 6 paramedic.
-
FFP3 mask fit test failed
Ms Bignall failed the fit test for an FFP3 mask; no suitable mask was available for her.
-
Patient A incident
Ms Bignall and crewmate attended Patient A; later complaint led to investigation of 13 PRFs.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Ms Bignall attended a disciplinary hearing regarding patient care; she admitted allegations 1-4 with mitigation.
-
Final written warning issued
All six allegations upheld; Ms Bignall received a final written warning for 18 months.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Ms Bignall entered early conciliation, a protected act.
-
First ET claim presented
Ms Bignall submitted her first Employment Tribunal claim alleging discrimination and health and safety detriment.
-
Appeal against final written warning
Appeal heard by Ms Cranmer; dismissed on 22 March 2021.
-
Dismissal for gross misconduct
After a disciplinary hearing in her absence, Ms Bignall was dismissed for bullying and harassment.
-
Appeal against dismissal dismissed
Mr McGuinness upheld the dismissal decision.
-
Liability hearing
Eight-day hearing on all claims; judgment reserved.
-
Judgment on liability
All claims dismissed; costs application reserved.
-
Costs hearing
Costs awarded against Ms Bignall in the sum of £3,000.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the paramedic was unfairly dismissed for misconduct, and whether she suffered victimisation, detriment for making a public interest disclosure, health and safety detriment, or unauthorised deduction from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal, victimisation, detriment related to public interest disclosure, health and safety detriment, and unauthorised deduction from wages. The paramedic was also ordered to pay £3,000 in costs for unreasonably pursuing some claims.
- Unfair dismissal: dismissed
- Victimisation: dismissed
- Detriment (public interest disclosure): dismissed
- Health and safety detriment: dismissed
- Unauthorised deduction from wages: dismissed
- Costs awarded against claimant: £3,000
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not guarantee protection from dismissal if there is clear evidence of serious misconduct.
- A thorough investigation by the employer can make a dismissal fair even if the employee disputes the findings.
- Pursuing multiple weak claims alongside a stronger one can lead to a costs order if they are found to be unreasonable.
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for misconduct if the employer carries out a proper investigation. The paramedic had 27 years' service, but the tribunal found that the London Ambulance Service had reasonable grounds to believe she had bullied colleagues.
What the employer did right
The trust conducted a thorough disciplinary process, including investigating complaints from multiple colleagues. The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct and followed a fair procedure. The paramedic was given opportunities to respond, and an appeal was heard.
What the employee could have done differently
The paramedic brought several claims, including victimisation and health and safety detriment, which the tribunal found had no reasonable prospects of success. This led to a costs order of £3,000. Focusing on the strongest claim might have avoided this.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that a fair process can justify dismissal even for long-serving staff. For employers, it shows the importance of thorough investigation and following disciplinary procedures. The costs award also highlights the risk of bringing weak claims.
Similar cases
Nurse who raised PPE concerns during pandemic wins whistleblowing detriment claim
A district nursing team leader who raised concerns about inadequate PPE and risk assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic has won her claim for detriment against Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. The tribunal found she was isolated from her team and her role was changed after making protected disclosures.
Refusing to wear PPE and follow safety instructions: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A Process Improvement Leader who refused to wear face masks and glasses during the pandemic and behaved aggressively towards managers was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled.
32-year manager dismissed for selling £20 of Royal Mail PPE: dismissal fair
A manager with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after selling Royal Mail PPE worth £20 on a local website. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Warehouse operative dismissed for not wearing face covering: dismissal fair
A warehouse operative who refused to wear a face covering during the pandemic was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled.