A Staffordshire-based Dentist was ordered by the Employment Tribunal to pay the costs of her former employer after she failed to succeed in her Employment Tribunal claim against them.
The doctor, AB, whose identity has been anonymised for legal reasons, submitted her claim to the Employment Tribunal in 2011 after she claimed that she had been bullied and harassed by her employer and that her employer had breached her contract of employment, forcing her to resign.
AB – who was on £56,000 a year – worked for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Partnership NHS Trust from 2005 to the date of her resignation in 2011 as a dentist. She resigned in 2011 after she claimed that she had been bullied and harassed by one of her managers and stated that the Trusts failure to deal with the bullying forced her to resign.
The matter went to the Employment Tribunal in Birmingham this year. The Employment Tribunal heard evidence that AB was unhappy that she had been afforded a lack of training opportunities, that she had been forced to work on Christmas Day in order to obtain a reference, that she had been “bombarded” with correspondence when she was off work sick and that racist remarks had been made around or to her. The NHS Trust denied that she had been bullied and warned her that they would make an application for costs should the claim not succeed.
The Employment Tribunal panel – chaired by Judge Ron Ashton – ruled in the NHS Trust’s favour, rejecting AB’s claims that she had been discriminated against and constructively dismissed. The Tribunal found that the remarks “were not made on racial grounds, or on the Claimant’s religion or belief” and that there was no evidence that the Claimant had been treated less favourably or discriminated against on those grounds. AB was ordered to pay the NHS Trust a contribution of £10,000 towards their costs because of her conduct.
Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented: “The Employment Tribunal awards costs only in rare cases but has done so more frequently over the last year than previously. Claimants should be wary, lest they end up with a large bill at the end of proceedings.”