A Bristol employment tribunal this month ruled that “long-serving employee” Dr A O Agyeman was “unfairly dismissed” by pharmacy group Avicenna Retail.
In a decision document published last week (July 22), it said that his “complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded” but that he “caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct”.
As a result, it decided that it is “just and equitable” to reduce both the compensatory award and basic award payable to Agyeman by 25% because of his “conduct before the dismissal”.
Read more: Knights boosts pharmacy footprint by 50% with Avicenna acquisitions
Agyeman also brought a separate complaint of “direct race discrimination” – it was not alleged that his dismissal “amounted to an act of direct race discrimination” – but the tribunal found that this was “not well-founded” and dismissed the claim.
Agyeman, who represented himself at the hearing, stressed that the tribunal found there was “insufficient evidence” he committed misconduct warranting dismissal and he should have been given a final written warning “at most”.
And he pointed to the “serious procedural defects” identified by the tribunal in Avicenna’s handling of the matter, including the lack of “thorough” investigation or opportunity for him to comment on the allegations.
Avicenna told C+D that although it believes it “followed process properly”, it accepts the findings and takes seriously its responsibility to look after its staff “fairly”. Read the company’s statement in full below.
“A bully”
The tribunal heard that Agyeman was employed by Avicenna from April 1 2004 to October 30 2023, latterly as a pharmacy manager at Westfield Pharmacy, having been transferred under TUPE to the company from Dudley Taylor Pharmacies Ltd (DTP) on March 2 2021.
Concerns were first raised about him in September 2023 when staff told an Avicenna manager visiting the pharmacy that “they were not happy about the atmosphere in the pharmacy” and Agyeman “was a bully”, leading to staff leaving the branch, it heard.
An investigation was launched into this and various other allegations, including that he spent time on “non-work-related activities” such as watching Netflix, listening to music, tutoring his daughter and speaking to family on the phone while at work, the document said.
Read more: Autistic pharmacist wins five-figure employment tribunal payout
Agyeman was suspended later that month, but there was “no structure” to the meeting and he was not questioned on the complaints “in an organised way” – with “no further investigation” of his views before a disciplinary hearing took place, it added.
He was dismissed in October 2023 “for gross misconduct” including bullying, “putting patient safety at risk”, “gross insubordination” and “unreasonable disrespect towards the company by continuously neglecting [his] duties as a pharmacy manager”, it said.
Avicenna “saw the patient safety issue as arising from [Agyeman] not listening and not being attentive to what was happening in the pharmacy because he was spending time on non-work-related matters”, according to the tribunal.
“Clean disciplinary record”
Agyeman submitted an appeal against the decision in November 2023 – rejected the following month - pointing to his “clean disciplinary record” and complaining about “a lack of proper investigation”, the tribunal heard.
He denied the allegations, saying that the non-work activities were “not…to the extent alleged” and took place during his lunch break - while he ate in the dispensary instead of the consultation room because it was “the only practical place” and he “was paid to stay on the premises for lunch”, it heard.
Read more: Pharmacy worker awarded £10k payout over ‘unfair dismissal’
He said he “did not have a formal lunch break” and took breaks “periodically through the day” because the pharmacy was busy and “his time was more pressed when other staff were on lunch”.
And Agyeman’s receipt of “lunchtime supervision payments” was “central” to his defence as to why his colleagues thought he was “conducting personal business during working time”, the document said.
But the pharmacy group concluded that while “it would be normal for a pharmacist to take a break to eat and drink while signed on as responsible pharmacist…home tutoring was not acceptable as [he was] being paid by the company during this time”, it added.
“Robust management style”
When asked about the allegations of bullying, Agyeman “admitted that he did not like weakness but the staff knew his ways and he expressed surprise at what they had said about him”, according to the document.
Avicenna’s regional manager admitted that she had “no prior concerns” about him but that she believed staff had “left it late” to report the problems because they were “scared” of him, saying that he told her staff were leaving “because they were not capable”, it said.
Read more: Pharmacist bags four-figure payout over ‘denied’ NHS redundancy pay
He explained that his “business plan” was to recruit accuracy checking technicians (ACTs) or those who could become them and was “open with new recruits about the need for them to develop…[but] if they did not show the potential or willingness to take that step then he would tend not to pass them in their probation periods”, it added.
His approach to assessing new staff members was to set them maths or chemistry questions in front of their colleagues as the pharmacy is “small and lacks private space” but he “did not do this with the aim of humiliating them”, the tribunal found.
“We find that [Agyeman] did have a robust management style, tested people and did not have much patience for those who proved not to have sufficient ability or drive to work and progress to and through the ACT course and he openly displayed this to staff,” it said.
“Substantively unfair”
The tribunal accepted that Avicenna “genuinely believed” that Agyeman had bullied staff and “neglected his duties by spending time on non-work-related activities and had therefore put patient safety at risk”.
But it concluded that the pharmacy group’s investigation and disciplinary process was not “reasonable…taking into account that [it] is a large employer, operating a large number of pharmacies and has the benefit of a dedicated HR team”.
It said that the allegations against Agyeman were “imprecise”, the investigation was “flawed” and “not sufficiently thorough” and the disciplinary hearing was “characterised by imprecise questions to which [he] could only reasonably give a limited response”.
Read more: Day Lewis pharmacy assistant wins £19k disability discrimination payout
Avicenna “did not keep an open mind and look for evidence that supported his response to the allegations as well as the evidence against”, it added.
It ruled that the company “did not have a reasonable basis” for finding Agyeman guilty of bullying or of “gross insubordination, unreasonable disrespect…or continuously neglecting his duties as alleged” – and that therefore his dismissal was “substantively unfair”.
“We do not consider that there is a basis for concluding that, had a fair process been followed, then [he] might have been fairly dismissed,” the tribunal concluded.
Read more: Avicenna Membership Services sold to Dutch buying group
It said that “at most”, Avicenna could have concluded that he “had poor management and customer-handling skills and needed to foster a more inclusive and less challenging working environment…in which he was more approachable”, giving him a “final written warning”.
This warning could have been “coupled perhaps with coaching on his management style, mediation with his staff members - and failing that consideration of moving [him] to another branch - [and] clear guidelines on the expectations...with regard to breaks”, it added.
However, the tribunal decided to reduce Agyeman’s payout by 25% because he contributed to the “bad atmosphere and discontent at the branch” - although this was “not conduct warranting summary dismissal”.
The tribunal dismissed Agyeman’s separate complaint of racial discrimination, highlighting that he had provided “no evidence” of this and that there was no link between what he was permitted to do during his lunch break and his race.
“We accept the findings”
Avicenna told C+D that it “took expert advice” and believed it “followed process properly”.
“At Avicenna, we take seriously our responsibility to look after our people fairly,” it said.
It added that it was “grateful” that the tribunal found there were “no grounds for racial discrimination” but “disappointed” at the judgement on unfair dismissal.
“We accept the findings and will adhere by the judgement,” the pharmacy group said.
This week, it was revealed that Knights Pharmacy will expand its premises numbers by around 50% thanks to its acquisition of 24 pharmacy branches from Avicenna Retail.
