Claimant v One Fylde
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was procedurally unfairly dismissed. The respondent failed to conduct a thorough investigation, specifically failing to re-interview the co-worker who made the complaint when the claimant suggested a motive for that complaint. This unfairness was not corrected at the disciplinary or appeal stage.
Facts
The claimant was a care worker employed by One Fylde to care for vulnerable adults. On 19 September 2022, the claimant admitted spraying deodorant on a clean incontinence pad of a vulnerable service user and saying the service user looked pregnant. A co-worker made a complaint about this conduct. The claimant was suspended, disciplined and dismissed for gross misconduct. The claimant argued the co-worker had a malicious motive for the complaint and cited unreported concerns about that co-worker. The respondent failed to re-interview the co-worker to explore the claimant's explanation for motive.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to the respondent's failure to conduct a thorough investigation. However, the claimant's basic award was reduced by 50% for contributory fault due to her admitted misconduct, failure to report concerns, lack of insight, and denial of wrongdoing. The compensatory award was reduced by 75% under Polkey principles because the tribunal found a 75% chance the claimant would have been dismissed anyway had a fair process been followed, given the seriousness of her admitted conduct. The total award was £6,105.11.
Practical note
Even where an employer's investigation is procedurally deficient, substantial Polkey and contributory fault reductions can apply where the employee's admitted conduct alone constitutes serious misconduct justifying dismissal, particularly in care settings involving vulnerable adults.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
75% chance that the claimant would still have been dismissed had the respondent conducted a fair investigation and the dismissal would have been within the range of reasonable responses, due to the seriousness of the claimant's admitted misconduct against a vulnerable adult
Claimant sprayed deodorant on clean incontinence pad of vulnerable service user and said service user looked pregnant; failed to report concerns about co-worker misconduct; lacked insight into how her admitted conduct affected the service user and co-workers; consistently denied wrongdoing despite breaching code of conduct
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2406111/2023
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- One Fylde
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister