Claimant v Turning Point

The tribunal found that the difference in treatment between the claimant (dismissed) and comparator Judith Black (final written warning) was amply explained by the respondent for reasons having nothing to do with sex. The claimant was the staff member first presented with the emergency, had primary responsibility, and showed no insight or contrition, whereas JB demonstrated accountability and had been told the on-call manager had been contacted.

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The claimant's failure to respond appropriately to a service user's paracetamol overdose was properly characterised as gross misconduct. He made at most one unsuccessful call to the on-call manager, then sent an email four hours later that would not be read for days. The tribunal held that any sensible person, let alone an experienced support worker, should have called emergency services given the risk to a vulnerable person with suicidal ideation. The investigation was reasonable and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

Three alleged acts of victimisation were all dismissed. First, the tribunal found on balance of probabilities that the alleged conversations on 26 February 2024 pressuring the claimant to withdraw his earlier tribunal claim did not occur. Second, there was no evidential basis to infer that the decision to institute disciplinary proceedings was influenced by the protected act, especially as the same process was applied to JB who had not done a protected act. Third, the dismissing officer was unaware of the protected act and the decision was clearly explicable for reasons unrelated to it.

Given the tribunal's finding that the claimant's conduct on 16 March 2024 was fairly characterised as gross misconduct, the respondent was contractually entitled to dismiss summarily without notice.