Pharmacy Technician Reinstated After Suspension for Dry Cleaning Business Dishonesty

Date of Decision: February 28, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician

Allegations:

Dishonestly claimed paid and unpaid carer's leave while working at her husband's dry-cleaning business.
Dishonestly claimed sick leave while again working at the dry-cleaning shop.
Intended to mislead her employer (the Trust) regarding the true circumstances of her absences.

Outcome: Suspension allowed to expire; registrant's fitness to practise no longer impaired.

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care.
Standard 2 – Work in partnership with people.
Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner.
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership.

Case Summary

Allegations

This case centred around a pharmacy technician who was found to have acted dishonestly by falsely claiming carer’s and sick leave from her NHS Trust employer while working at her husband’s dry-cleaning business. The registrant submitted a special leave request in January 2017, claiming she needed paid and unpaid leave to care for a sick child. However, she was observed working at the dry-cleaners during this period.

A few weeks later, in February 2017, the registrant again called in sick to work, but was once more seen at the same dry-cleaning business. These actions led to investigations by the NHS Counter Fraud Service and the Trust’s HR department. The registrant admitted her wrongdoing before a Trust disciplinary panel and expressed remorse for her actions.

The principal allegation was that the registrant dishonestly obtained financial benefit from the NHS by misrepresenting the reasons for her absences, and thereby breached the fundamental trust expected between employer and employee.

Findings

The initial Fitness to Practise Committee, which heard the matter in August 2018, found the registrant’s conduct to be dishonest and indicative of a deliberate attempt to defraud the NHS. Her actions were not isolated, spanning six days over two months. The panel highlighted that the registrant:

Only stopped once discovered.
Did not initially admit wrongdoing on her own accord.
Gained financially from her actions, though she did repay the amount later.
Failed to fully appreciate the breach of trust her actions entailed.

They found limited insight and remediation at the time, noting the absence of a reflective statement or evidence of changed behaviour. Though she showed some remorse, the panel was not persuaded that she understood the gravity of her misconduct or had taken steps to prevent recurrence.

This review hearing, held six months later, presented a more reflective and candid registrant. She was described by the Committee as a “frank and straightforward witness,” admitting her vulnerabilities and acknowledging the seriousness of her past actions. She showed that she understood the professional and ethical implications of her misconduct—particularly the erosion of trust with colleagues, the employer, and public confidence in the pharmacy profession.

The registrant explained that her decision to work at the dry-cleaners stemmed from family pressure, with her husband unwell at the time. However, she accepted full responsibility and outlined how she would handle similar situations differently in the future. Notably, she stated that she would now inform management openly if personal matters interfered with her work, rather than attempting to manage them independently or dishonestly.

One of the key reassurances to the Committee came when the registrant voluntarily shared that she had spoken with her husband, who now understood the consequences of the pressure he placed on her and committed not to put her in that position again.

The Committee found this testimony credible and reflective of genuine insight and behavioural change.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The GPhC’s principal concern was whether the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. The Committee considered whether she had:

Fully acknowledged the misconduct.
Demonstrated insight and taken remedial steps.
Shown that her integrity could now be relied upon.

Ultimately, they concluded that she had made significant progress in all these areas. She had not reoffended since the 2017 incidents and had demonstrated clear insight into the seriousness and impact of her behaviour.

The Committee accepted that she now better understands how to navigate work-life pressures, and would seek help from managers if needed. This was pivotal in reassuring them that the risk of future dishonesty was minimal.

As such, they determined that her fitness to practise was no longer impaired, and allowed the suspension to expire.

Sanction

The outcome of the review was that the registrant’s suspension, originally imposed for six months, would not be extended. The Committee was satisfied that the period already served adequately upheld the public interest and that there was no ongoing risk to patient safety or public confidence.

This aligns with legal principles established in Khan v GPhC, which emphasise that sanctions at review should focus on current fitness to practise, not on re-penalising past conduct.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Honesty and Transparency Are Non-Negotiable
Dishonesty, even in non-clinical contexts like employment leave, can significantly undermine a professional’s fitness to practise. Pharmacy professionals must maintain integrity in all aspects of their roles.
Misconduct Beyond the Pharmacy Can Have Regulatory Consequences
Actions outside the dispensary—such as misleading an employer over leave—can still result in serious regulatory action. The GPhC assesses the overall trustworthiness and integrity of its registrants.
Insight and Remediation Are Critical
The difference between the original and review hearings was largely based on the registrant’s demonstrated insight and steps toward remediation. Reflective statements, genuine remorse, and practical measures to avoid recurrence carry significant weight.
Personal Circumstances May Provide Context, Not Justification
While family pressures were acknowledged, they did not excuse the misconduct. Professionals are expected to uphold ethical standards even when under personal stress.
Communication With Employers is Key
The registrant’s acknowledgement that she should have spoken openly with management is a powerful reminder: transparency with supervisors is a safer path than secrecy.
Impact Goes Beyond the Immediate Employer
As the panel noted, dishonesty in the workplace affects colleagues, public confidence, and ultimately the reputation of the pharmacy profession.

“She demonstrated that she understood the impact she had had on colleagues who were left to do extra work, her employer, who could no longer trust her, patients and the public whom she had let down and who also would no longer trust her.”

This case illustrates how insight, candour, and ethical awareness can pave the way toward professional rehabilitation, even after serious misconduct.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.