Claimant v Astley House Nursing Home Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The respondent failed to investigate properly, did not provide sufficient information for the claimant to respond to allegations, dismissed her through an unauthorised decision-maker who had been note-taker at the investigation, did not consider any sanction other than dismissal, and ignored mitigating factors including the claimant's clean record, length of service, and possible depression. The appeal was a box-ticking exercise with no genuine review.
The tribunal concluded there was no repudiatory breach of contract justifying summary dismissal. The claimant had clocked in and out honestly, was paid for those hours over two years without challenge, and there was no evidence of dishonesty or intentional disobedience. The respondent produced no disciplinary procedure showing the conduct warranted dismissal without notice.
The respondent deducted £2,497.95 from the claimant's wages labelled as 'overpayment' but led no evidence about how these sums were calculated, what hours they related to, or whether there was any investigation into authorisation. The claimant had worked all the hours recorded and was entitled to believe that payment for those hours meant they had been authorised by head office. The deductions were therefore unlawful under section 13 ERA 1996.
Facts
The claimant worked as an administrator at a nursing home for over five years. During the pandemic she regularly worked additional hours with approval. From March 2022 she was told to revert to 35 contracted hours with any additional time requiring authorisation from head office, but her manager never monitored this. In June 2024, after a deputy manager queried whether the claimant had authority to attend a vet appointment on work time, the owner investigated and found the claimant had been working and being paid for additional hours over a two-year period. She was dismissed for gross misconduct including alleged fraudulent activity and falsification of timesheets.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. There was no proper investigation, the claimant was not given sufficient information to respond to allegations, the decision-maker was unauthorised under the respondent's procedures, and no sanction other than dismissal was considered. The claimant was also wrongfully dismissed as there was no repudiatory breach - she had honestly recorded hours worked and was entitled to believe payment meant authorisation. Deductions from wages were unlawful as the respondent provided no evidence of how alleged overpayments were calculated.
Practical note
An employer cannot dismiss for gross misconduct based on working unauthorised overtime when it consistently paid for those hours over two years without challenge, failed to investigate, and dismissed through a fundamentally flawed process that predetermined the outcome.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
The claimant's failure to raise the question of her hours with the respondent was culpable and contributed to dismissal, though at the lower end of the scale as she did not deliberately mislead and had become used to hours being approved. 15% reduction applied to compensatory award only.
Significant breaches of ACAS Code including failure to provide enough information to allow claimant to answer allegations and failure to carry out proper investigations. Not a case of small employer with limited resources; group employed over 450 staff and had access to Peninsula HR advice.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4106610/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Administrator
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep