The claimant worked as an IT analyst with the respondent NHS Trust. He was of Black and Afro-Caribbean origin. The case centred around an incident when the claimant was driving into a hospital car park. It was alleged that a van driver swore at the claimant “using the c-word,” and called him “f***ing stupid”. The van driver, however, argued that it was the claimant who had sworn and assaulted him. It was also alleged that numerous references were made regarding the claimant’s race and skin colour.

The claimant called the hospital’s security office for help, but no assistance arrived. He was suspended although allegations that there was a racial element to the incident were not properly addressed.

The tribunal held that the respondent’s investigation was “fundamentally flawed” and that claimant was “interrogated” in a way that prevented him telling his story. Further, the resulting investigatory report was “worded in a manner that called into question the veracity of [Hasting’s] evidence.”

The tribunal came to the view that the claimant was treated less favourably because of race as the “sole focus was on the claimant’s conduct [and that] the white witnesses were accepted to be the victims.” The tribunal found the Trust guilty of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination.

Practical Lessons

The respondent missed various opportunities to properly investigate the alleged incidents. As well as failing to probe evidence of the claimant’s innocence, inconsistencies in the evidence of other witnesses were simply ignored.

Workplace investigations must amount to a proper review of all the evidence and when employers fail to do that, trouble looms. The level of investigation will, of course, depend on the circumstances but the fact that allegations of racism were not addressed in this case was extremely serious.

What makes the respondent’s failures even more shocking is the fact that the claimant stood a serious risk of losing his job. Where loss of employment is a likely outcome if allegations are proved, a more stringent investigation will be required.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/599d90e5e5274a28b5790970/Mr_R_Hastings_v_Kings_College_Hospital_NHS_Foundation_Trust_2300394-2016_Full.pdf