Claimant v St. Luke's Hospital
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. The claimant admitted most allegations including neglecting a patient, taking unauthorised breaks, using lifting equipment alone, and refusing management instructions. The accumulation of conduct reasonably undermined confidence in the claimant's ability to keep patients safe. The tribunal held that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses given the care setting, the claimant's previous warnings, and inconsistencies in her explanations.
Facts
The claimant was an auxiliary nurse employed at a nursing home charity for over 9 years. She was dismissed for gross misconduct following five allegations: neglecting a palliative care patient by failing to change his soiled pad and not reporting his refusal of care; failing to take a Covid test despite displaying symptoms; taking an unauthorised break; using lifting equipment alone; and refusing to assist with patient transfer. The claimant had previous warnings for similar conduct including taking unauthorised breaks and using equipment alone. She admitted most of the conduct but disputed some details.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found the respondent held a genuine belief in the misconduct based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation and fair procedure. Although some individual acts might not constitute gross misconduct in isolation, the accumulation of conduct, previous warnings, and inconsistencies in the claimant's explanations meant dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses for a care setting where patient safety was paramount.
Practical note
An employer in a care setting can fairly summarily dismiss for an accumulation of conduct falling short of gross misconduct where, taken together, the conduct undermines confidence in the employee's ability to keep patients safe, particularly when there are previous warnings and credibility concerns.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301752/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- auxiliary nurse
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No