Cases3301752/2024

Claimant v St. Luke's Hospital

29 May 2025Before Employment Judge Sarah MatthewsWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

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

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Basildon Academies v Amadi EAT 0343/14Hewston v Ofsted [2025] EWCA Civ 250Hope v British Medical Association [2022] IRLR 206Mbubaegbu v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust EAT 0218/17Quintiles Commercial UK Ltd v Barongo EAT 0255/17BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111CRO Ports London Ltd v Wiltshire EAT 0344/14Philander v Leonard Cheshire Disability EAT 0275/17

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.98

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