Benefit
of the doubt can go to the alleged wrongdoer
|
In
Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan, the Court of Appeal held that
where there is conflicting evidence, it could be perfectly proper for the
employer to give the alleged wrongdoer the benefit of the doubt without
feeling compelled to have to come down in favour of on one side or the other.
A
nurse from the Philippines,
was alleged to have abused a patient. A manager interviewed Ms Roldan and a
colleague (Ms Denton) who claimed to have witnessed the events. The
disciplinary panel found Ms Roldan’s evidence unconvincing and preferred that
of Ms Denton. They dismissed Ms Roldan. The tribunal found the dismissal
unfair. As the investigating manager and the disciplinary panel believed Ms
Denton had no reason to lie, they had not in any way sought to question the
reliability of her evidence, when it was clear that on one point it was not entirely
credible.
The
EAT overturned the decision but the finding of unfair dismissal was restored
by the Court of Appeal. When assessing the reasonableness of an
investigation, tribunals should take into account the gravity of the
consequences on the employee; where these are serious, the investigator must
be “even-handed” in looking for evidence in the accused’s favour as
well as evidence against them.
The
Court of Appeal added that where there is conflicting evidence, but no way of
determining which version is more credible, it could be perfectly proper to
give the alleged wrongdoer the benefit of the doubt without feeling compelled
to have to come down in favour of on one side or the other.
|
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
