Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no reasonable grounds for the employer's belief in misconduct; there was no reasonable investigation whatsoever and dismissal was well beyond the range of reasonable responses. The employer failed to provide any fair procedure, making a predetermined decision without hearing the claimant's account or conducting any meaningful investigation.
The claimant was summarily dismissed without notice pay. The tribunal found no gross misconduct had occurred, as there was insufficient persuasive evidence that the claimant engaged in consensual kissing with Z. The claimant was entitled to 5 weeks' notice which was not paid.
The tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction of £1072.12 net wages for July 2023. The claimant's evidence was consistent and credible, supported by contemporaneous messages to the respondent and HMRC. The respondent failed to provide evidence of actual payment.
Liability and quantum for holiday pay including 230.5 hours and payment in lieu for untaken leave on termination were expressly reserved to a further hearing. The tribunal made preliminary observations but did not determine the claim.
Facts
X worked as personal assistant and carer to Y's adult son Z who has autism. On 16 June 2023 both X and Y were separately contacted by Safeguarding about an allegation that X had kissed Z. X denied it. Y dismissed X summarily on 1 September 2023 without investigation or hearing, claiming gross misconduct. Y later claimed she had previous concerns about bruising and a November 2022 allegation but never raised these with X and they were not mentioned in her pleaded defence.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair: there were no reasonable grounds for belief in misconduct, no investigation, no fair procedure, and dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal rejected Polkey and contributory fault arguments. Wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of £1072.12 wages also succeeded. A 25% ACAS uplift was applied. Remedy to be assessed at further hearing.
Practical note
An employer cannot fairly dismiss on the basis of a third-party safeguarding allegation alone without conducting any investigation or giving the employee a proper hearing, even where the allegation concerns a vulnerable person in the employee's care and police are investigating.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
Numerous unreasonable failures by respondent to comply with ACAS Code including failure to investigate, notify of case to answer, hold a disciplinary meeting, allow employee to set out case, and provide impartial appeal. Maximum 25% uplift applied.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2413027/2023
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Y
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Personal assistant and carer
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister