But Justin McFadden, who worked for the health board from April 2021 to October 2024, was also found to have “contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 50 per cent”.
Following a hearing in Llandudno, Mr McFadden lost further claims against the health board for failure to make reasonable adjustments, detriment, and harassment.
His dispute centred on an insulin competency form completed in June 2024.
A senior nurse, Deborah Allinson, supervised his first competency visit, and later said she had concerns about his performance and had not signed the competency form.
But when the completed form was later submitted, a signature appeared in her supervisor box – Mr McFadden denied signing it, and said he did not know how it came to be there.
The health board investigated, and found the allegation that Mr McFadden had submitted competency paperwork containing a false supervisor signature was “substantiated”.
Mr McFadden, who has a “long-standing mental health condition” relating to work-related stress and anxiety, was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct on October 1, 2024.
But the tribunal criticised the health board’s disciplinary process for being “narrow” and failing to consider relevant extenuating circumstances.
Employment Judge Davies found that manager failed to properly investigate concerns raised by Mr McFadden about competency-signing practices within the team.
The disciplinary chair, the judge added, refused to explore evidence Mr McFadden said showed wider problems with how competency paperwork was handled.
Although Mr McFadden won his unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found he had contributed to the outcome, because he was responsible for ensuring the competency form was completed correctly before submitting it.
The form contained gaps and deficiencies which, the tribunal said, he should have noticed.
It was also acknowledged by the tribunal that Mr McFadden did not know he had failed the competency assessment when he submitted the paperwork.
Employment Judge Davies wrote: “In this case, there were failures to properly probe and to explore the full circumstances operating in the team.
“It is stressed how important it is because of the nature of the work undertaken such as insulin injections to patients and patient’s safety, that there be strict adherence to these policies, yet there was evidence before the disciplining officer of the disregard for these policies.
“Another failure was the fact that the forms themselves were not completed fully, either by the caseload managers or by workers, and yet were not picked up but were allowed to be filed without comment.
“The respondents did not allow the claimant fair opportunity to state his case, and they failed to have regard to relevant circumstances and ignored relevant evidence which could have affected the outcome and/or the sanction of dismissal in this case.
“Dismissal was not within the band of reasonable decisions by a reasonable employer.”
In dismissing Mr McFadden’s other claims, the judge found that to ask him whether stress or mental health issues were affecting his work was a legitimate question, rather than harassment.
No evidence was presented that any alleged detriment, including delays in McFadden’s appeal, occurred because of his own “whistleblowing,” which the tribunal accepted was a protected disclosure.
Employment Judge Davies added: “The claimant also had the responsibility and duty to ensure that the form that was submitted was fully completed, and it was not.
“The claimant contributed to his dismissal by his failures.”
A “remedy hearing” will take place if the health board and Mr McFadden cannot reach an out-of-court compensation agreement.
The judge ruled that Mr McFadden should not receive a reduced compensation package on the assumption that he would have been dismissed anyway had the health board followed the correct procedures.