GPhC warns pharmacist for sexual harassment

Pharmacist Andrew Lumby, registration number 2066939, has been found guilty of sexual harassment by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC).

Mr Lumby was given a warning by the GPhC this month after being charged with making inappropriate sexual comments to staff at the Co-op Pharmacy he managed.  He was ordered to complete a training course in equality and diversity after a fitness to practise committee heard how he made inappropriate comments to colleagues.

Mr Lumby admitted to commenting on the size of a staff member's breasts and suggesting to a colleague that a "van delivery driver wanted to slip her one", but denied allegations that he made any physical gestures of an inappropriate nature. He also denied that the offences took place over a long period of time.

But Christopher Gibson QC, chairman of the GPhC's fitness to practise committee, said Mr Lumby was "guilty over a considerable period of time of comments and actions amounting to sexual harassment of his work colleagues". However, the committee said that independent of Mr Lumby's actions, there was a "culture of chatting amongst the staff at the pharmacy; that included some sexual banter".

The committee accepted that Mr Lumby "did not intend to cause distress" and that he was "shocked" by the effect of his actions. The committee chairman also added that "none of the staff felt threatened" as a result of his actions.

In issuing a warning to Mr Lumby over his conduct and imposing a requirement for the pharmacist to attend a course in equality and diversity, the committee chairman said: "We have reminded ourselves that our role in applying a sanction is not to punish Mr Lumby, although any sanction we impose may of course have that effect, but our role is to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession, and maintain standards in the profession. Any sanction we impose must be proportionate to the circumstances and fair to Mr Lumby."

The committee concluded that Mr Lumby's work as a pharmacist had not been affected by the actions under investigation and that patients had not been involved. It added that Mr Lumby had changed his conduct since the incidents came to light and that there was a lack of "training and support in management skills" at the pharmacy where Mr Lumby worked.

Co-operative Pharmacy managing director John Nuttall  expressed "disappointment" at the outcome of the hearing. "We believe that the circumstances of this case warranted stronger sanctions including a requirement to actively demonstrate a change in behaviour following completion of the equality training programme," he added.

Mr Lumby resigned from his position at the Co-op in October last year. The GPhC heard that the allegations against Mr Lumby took place between December 2009 and October 2010.  

Comment on this article
You are not currently logged in. Login or register
Your Comments
M Nazari, Community pharmacist
Posted on 22 November 2011.
I think it's another example of naming and shaming pharmacists. I think the society wants their members to be angels from heaven. Even the employers that you work so hard for can turn against you and pretend they are the righteous.
Top
Dawn Hough, Hospital pharmacist
Posted on 22/11/11 14:15 in reply to M N.
This sounds like a case of a joke getting out of hand. Obviously a touchy member of staff or a member of staff who developed a grudge, for some reason, and is consequently looking for revenge.
Top
Schar Minkel, Community pharmacist
Posted on 22/11/11 16:39 in reply to Dawn Hough.
Yes would agree that probably a member of staff wanting to get one over on the poor pharmacist!Best not to indulge in that kind of banter as when there s a mood change, they know they can become all mother superior and take it out on you using all the legislative power to hand.The workplace in this country is PC and H+S mad!
Top
shelton magunje, Community pharmacist
Posted on 23/11/11 07:23 in reply to Schar Minkel.
What i find shocking is the comment by John Nuttall that he expected stronger punishment for 'his' pharmacist. That confirms what the PDA has always said, "pharmacists should realise that employers dont see them as members of their team". If it was any other employee then Mr Nuttall would have come up with some 'politically correct' statement like 'we value our employees and we will give Mr Lumby all the training and support he needs'.
I urge Mr Lumby to ask the PDA Union to look into Mr Nuttall's comments and make a case for constructive dismissal, maybe then the CO-OP will learn to treat pharmacists fairly.
Maybe Mr Nuttall needs the training in 'equality and diversity' just as much as Mr Lumby!?
Top
Christopher Plail, Community pharmacist
Posted on 27 November 2011.
Its a question of double standards, sexual banter was being exchanged in the pharmacy on a regular basis but all of a sudden it offends. Why didn't the member of staff have the guts to complain directly to the pharmacist and tell him that she was offended. He could then have offered his apology and if he didn't then she obviously should take the matter further.
Sexual inuendoes and outrightly sexual comments are being broadcast by TV shows and it films as entertainment on a daily basis that are far worse than what has happened here so its not surprising that it can also crop up in the work place as well.
The worst and crudest sexual remarks I overheard were on a ladies hen night, and wait for it, it consisted mainly of pharmacy staff.
Top

Please note You must be a registered user of Chemist+Druggist and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of Chemist+Druggist. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Chemist+Druggist coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.



 

Job of the week

Pharmacist & Technicians

Various locations

£45k + performance bonus

Follow C+D Jobs on