Employer is not obliged to believe the complainant or alleged wrongdoer

In Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522, the Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal's decision that the hospital had unfairly dismissed Ms Roldan, an intensive care nurse, for allegedly mistreating a patient.

Employer's liability for the loss of a dismissed employee

The hospital referred the alleged incident to the police in accordance with its procedures. As a result of the referral, the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted Ms Roldan but she was acquitted.

Ms Roldan could not work for 14 months while she was being prosecuted. Ms Roldan claimed that the tribunal’s award for her unfair dismissal should include her loss due to being unable to work while she was being prosecuted. Her prosecution was a result of the hospital referring her case to the police - and therefore - the hospital was responsible and liable for her loss during the 14-month prosecution period.

The EAT disagreed. However, at the Court of Appeal, the hospital conceded that it was liable for Ms Roldan's loss during the 14-month prosecution period. The Court of Appeal stated that the EAT's decision was wrong and the hospital was right to make the concession [see para. 43].

Employer is not obliged to believe the complainant or alleged wrongdoer

The Court of Appeal added that where the complainant and alleged wrongdoer have presented conflicting accounts of an alleged incident, the employer is not obliged to:

• Believe the complainant and disbelieve the alleged wrongdoer or

• Disbelieve the complainant and believe the alleged wrongdoer.

There may be cases where the employer cannot properly resolve the conflicting evidence - and therefore – it will conclude that the complaint has not been proven. However, such a conclusion does not mean that the employer disbelieves the complainant. 

For example, the employer may tend to believe that a complainant is giving an accurate account of an incident - but at the same time it may be wholly out of character for an employee - who has given years of good service to have acted in the way alleged. It would be perfectly proper in such a case - for the employer to give the benefit of the doubt to the alleged wrongdoer - without feeling compelled to make a decision in favour of the complainant or alleged wrongdoer [see para. 73].