Claimant v Wellchime Ltd t/a April Court Care Home

The tribunal found that the failure to invite the claimant to manual handling training during her maternity leave and the failure to implement a return-to-work support plan did not cause her any disadvantage. The CCTV evidence showed the claimant was able to make safe transfers on at least three occasions, demonstrating that lack of training or a return-to-work plan did not result in the unsafe transfer. Therefore, there was no unfavourable treatment and no discrimination.

The tribunal found that calling the police before the investigation meeting was standard protocol and not designed to intimidate the claimant, so there was no less favourable treatment. Regarding the police knocking on the door during the meeting, while this caused increased stress and was less favourable treatment, the tribunal accepted it was not preplanned and would have happened regardless of the claimant's race. The knock was because of the police's quick response, not because of the claimant's race.

The tribunal found the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair. The respondent had reasonable grounds for belief in misconduct (the claimant admitted using unsafe transfer techniques and not reading the care plan), conducted a reasonable investigation, acted in a procedurally fair manner, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the serious nature of the unsafe transfer of a vulnerable resident. The tribunal rejected arguments that the process was rushed, unfair due to withholding photographs, or unfair due to lack of access to policies (which were available via the ELFY system).