Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawDisciplineUnfair dismissal

Case of the week: Kay v Cheadle Royal Healthcare Ltd t/a Affinity Healthcare

by Nicholas Jew 19 Dec 2011
by Nicholas Jew 19 Dec 2011

Kay v Cheadle Royal Healthcare Ltd t/a Affinity Healthcare

FACTS

Mrs Kay was employed at Cheadle Royal Hospital as a deputy ward nurse for three years until her dismissal in October 2009. She worked on a ward with a staff nurse, Ms Thomas. The ward was attended by Dr Al-Amin.

In July 2009, Dr Al-Amin made a formal complaint of bullying against Mrs Kay. Following an investigation and a disciplinary hearing, Mrs Kay was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct for bullying Dr Al-Amin. The investigation showed that Ms Thomas was heavily implicated in the bullying, but no disciplinary proceedings were taken against her. Mrs Kay brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

DECISION

One of the arguments advanced by Mrs Kay was that Ms Thomas was also guilty of bullying Dr Al-Amin, but was not disciplined and the dismissal was therefore unfair when compared with Ms Thomas’s treatment.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was fair. The tribunal found that as Ms Thomas’ role in the bullying was peripheral, and that this was sufficient for the employer to treat Ms Thomas and Mrs Kay differently. The employer was entitled to conclude that Ms Thomas was not as much to blame as Mrs Kay.

Mrs Kay appealed to the EAT. The EAT reiterated that the question is essentially whether or not it was reasonable to dismiss the employee whose claim is under consideration, and that tribunals should concentrate on this question and treat arguments based on disparity of treatment with care.

However, evidence of decisions made by employers in truly parallel circumstances may be sufficient to support an argument that dismissal was not reasonable. In this case, the tribunal was entitled to reach the decision that it did. While there was evidence that Ms Thomas was implicated in the bullying, there was plainly a difference between the evidence relating to Mrs Kay and Ms Thomas.

IMPLICATIONS

A dismissal will be unfair on the grounds of inconsistent treatment only on rare occasions. A disparity of treatment might be relevant to a tribunal’s consideration of an unfair dismissal claim if there is evidence:

  • that employees have been led by an employer to believe that certain categories of conduct will be overlooked or not lead to dismissal;
  • of decisions made in other cases that support the inference that the purported reason stated by the employer is not the real or genuine reason for dismissal; and
  • of decisions made by the employer in truly parallel circumstances that may be sufficient to support an argument that it was not reasonable on the part of the employer to dismiss.

However, the employer could be acting reasonably in treating differently employees guilty of the same offences where there are mitigating circumstances, or the employee’s attitude is such that it is unlikely that such behaviour would be repeated.

Although the employer should always consider how previous similar situations have been dealt with, the allegedly similar situations must truly be similar for consistency to be relevant to the reasonableness of the dismissal.

Even if there is clear inconsistency, employers are still entitled to a degree of latitude. For example, if the employer has been unduly lenient in respect of particular behaviour in the past, dismissal may still be reasonable if the employer decides to take a harder line, provided that employees have not been led to believe that the behaviour is acceptable.

Ultimately, the question is whether or not the particular dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, and inconsistency will only be one factor in assessment of reasonableness.

Nicholas Jew, partner, DLA Piper

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Practical guidance from XpertHR on disciplinary sanctions

  • How to decide on an appropriate disciplinary penalty XpertHR outlines the considerations to be taken into account when deciding on an appropriate disciplinary penalty.
  • The boundaries of the band of reasonable responses In deciding whether or not a dismissal was fair, the tribunal must apply the “band of reasonable responses” test and consider if dismissal was an option open to a reasonable employer. While the band is wide, there are limits to when dismissal will be a reasonable response, as a recent Court of Appeal decision highlights. Consultant editor Darren Newman discusses.
  • Reinstatement of one employee rendered another’s dismissal unfair Where two employees are dismissed fairly for the same misconduct, can the reinstatement of one render the other’s dismissal unfair? This was the key issue in the employment tribunal decision, Mohammad v DHL Services Ltd ET/1100752/10.

Nicholas Jew

previous post
NHS psychological therapy audit shows positive results
next post
Office of Fair Trading to assess private healthcare referral

You may also like

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Institute of Directors demand reforms to Employment Rights...

6 Jun 2025

Employment Rights Bill: peers propose change to work...

4 Jun 2025

Facilities firms share ‘deep concerns’ on workers’ rights

4 Jun 2025

NDA ban vital to tackling misogyny in music...

4 Jun 2025

Disability harassment and discrimination ‘shockingly high’

3 Jun 2025

House of Lords to resume scrutiny of Employment...

30 May 2025

Indefinite leave to remain proposal could place workers...

30 May 2025

  • Preparing for a new era of workforce planning (webinar) WEBINAR | Employers now face...Read more
  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+