A Scottish woman has lost her bid for £500,000 of compensation after she was tied to a chair and gagged at a fishery office.
DeeAnn Fitzpatrick, a former civil servant for Marine Scotland, was found to have been 'dishonest' after she had claimed to being subjected to "bullying."
While working at the fishery office in Scrabster, Caithness, in 2010, Ms Fitzpatrick had claimed to have been "restrained" by two male colleagues.
The 52-year-old had stated that the incident was a lesson to "keep her mouth shut" after she had spoke out about the toxic work culture, reports the Record.
READ MORE - Edinburgh driver captures dramatic moment his Audi is destroyed in horror crash
A photograph of Ms Fitzpatrick being tied to a chair, gagged and restrained at the office had then gone viral in 2018, which had caused a police investigation.
However, a digital forensic expert told an employment tribunal the image, which had been saved on the Scottish Government server, was actually taken in August 2009.
Bosses at Marine Scotland fired Fitzpatrick for gross misconduct, stating she had intentionally lied about the date of the incident and forged emails to try to make her case.
She later launched a legal case and claimed to be the “subject of a conspiracy between senior managers and HR staff… to dismiss her for making a protected disclosure”.
But the tribunal has ruled the Scottish Government body was entitled to sack Fitzpatrick as there was evidence she had been dishonest about the chair incident.
Judge Alexander Kemp said: “The likelihood is that an email alleged to have been sent to Mr Cunningham on 15 February 2011 by her was false in the reference to the date and incident, and were added later, as were similar parts of emails from him, and emails to and from Mr Macgregor.
“We concluded from all the evidence before us that she had been dishonest and not simply mistaken not only as that issue of mistake was not ever her position, but also as it was we considered not realistically possible to reconcile the date of the photograph, the comments she made regarding the incident with Ms Sutherland in September 2010, with the emails she claimed to have sent to Mr Cunningham on 15 February 2011.
“We concluded that those emails and the date of the incident were so closely related that if the date of the photograph was not as the claimant alleged, her dishonesty in relation to the claims she made in those emails did follow from that.
“We were satisfied that there was a level of dishonesty in relation to allegations 5.1 - 5.5 which was sufficiently high as to amount to repudiation of the contract by the claimant.
“Taking all of the evidence before us into consideration we concluded that the respondent had proved that it was entitled to terminate the contract without notice as a result.”
But the law chief expressed grave concerns over the incident which was described as “high jinks” and a “prank” by some staff.
He added: “The photograph of the claimant is in the view of all of the members of the tribunal not acceptable in the modern workplace, nor was it in 2009, even if it was taken by those involved believing it to be a form of prank.
“Some of the details of the incident were not clear, such as how it started, precisely who did what, whether the claimant kicked out and if so whether either of those involved responded to that, and others.
“It is now over 10 years since it was taken, but then and now it is far beyond the pale of what we consider could ever be acceptable behaviour in the workplace, as did taking a photograph of it and sending it to others… which was we believe not an acceptable act in itself.
“Nothing in our judgment should be taken as condoning the behaviours of those involved to any extent.
“The claimant had the perception that she had been the victim of a bullying culture for a very long period.
“Whilst we have made the findings that we have, not all that she said in evidence was, we considered, unreliable or untrue.
“Some of the behaviours at the office were entirely wrong.
“It was not a kindergarten, which is the term one person spoken to by Mr Hart used, but a government office charged with enforcing the law.
“It was at least for a material period dysfunctional given the evidence of how those working there conducted themselves and not all steps that were recommended to be taken to remedy that were.”
