"it's their tactical and implementation advice that impresses me the most!"
Garamukanwa v Solent NHS Trust [EAT] | 2016
Mr Garamukanwa was a clinical manager for the NHS Trust and had previously been in a relationship with staff nurse Maclean. When Ms Maclean ended their relationship Mr Garamukanwa suspected she was involved with another member of staff, Ms Smith.
Ms Maclean and Ms Smith were the subject of various malicious emails sent to their work colleagues and Ms Maclean reported the matter to the police. The police investigated and, although did not bring charges against Mr Garamukanwa, they did make available to the NHS Trust evidence obtained during their investigation, specifically photos on Mr Garamukanwa’s mobile phone of Ms Maclean’s home and a sheet from a notebook with email addresses from which some of the malicious emails had been sent.
The NHS Trust conducted an investigation and ultimately dismissed Mr Garamukanwa for gross misconduct, relying on the material provided by the police.
Mr Garamukanwa brought a claim for unfair dismissal, which was rejected. He appealed, questioning whether the employment tribunal had dealt correctly with the Article 8 issue: that he had a reasonable expectation that information he had not shared with anyone was private (and which had been obtained by the police) and should remain private and could not be relied on by the Trust to dismiss him. The employment tribunal had disagreed.
The EAT agreed with the employment tribunal that Mr Garamukanwa could have no expectation of privacy.
The emails had potential to impact on the work environment, were sent to work email addresses and related to work matters. Also, the distress caused to Ms Maclean and Ms Smith could well have impacted upon their performance at work.
The senior position held by Mr Garamukanwa was relevant as he was subject to professional standards.
In these circumstances, it was proper that the NHS Trust used and relied on the material in reaching its decision to dismiss Mr Garamukanwa.
This case does not mean that employers can go on a fishing exercise to find evidence against employees. In this case, where it had been provided to them by the police, the Trust was permitted to rely on it in dismissing.
There was also a question mark over whether the police should have given the Trust the evidence in the first place. This was not addressed!
Book a phone consultation
Apply for a FREE phone consultation with one of our employment law solicitors to discuss your case, how we can help and find out how much it is likely to cost.
Selected evening and weekend appointments available.
Tell us about your case
Our online form is the easy way to tell us about your case and employment details.
Short of time? Our ‘save and resume’ feature lets you save your answers and complete the form later.
Reasons to Choose
Attention to attention
Speed of response
Latest Employer Knowledge Bank Articles
Use our knowledge bank of employer focused briefing notes, checklists and case reports to obtain trusted and accurate information about key employment law and HR topics to help you learn more about your employment law rights.View more
Becoming our client is a straightforward process. However, before choosing Quantrills as your employment law solicitors you’ll want to be completely sure we are the right people to help you achieve your objectives. Having looked at our web site, if you like our approach and would like to discuss how we can help you, getting started is easy.
At Quantrills we are flexible in how we work with you and how we progress your case...
01473 688 100Or request a call back