Cases2501667/2024

Claimant v Cygnet (DH) Limited

5 December 2024Before Employment Judge AspdenTeessidein person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalpartly succeeded

The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to unreasonable delay in the investigation (over 3 months, with claimant suspended throughout) and lack of communication. However, the substantive reason for dismissal (belief that claimant attempted to assault a patient by kicking) was within the range of reasonable responses, the investigation was otherwise adequate, and the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was reasonable given the claimant's senior position and the seriousness of the conduct. The tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, finding the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed even with a prompt, fair procedure.

Facts

The claimant was a senior registered mental health nurse with 20 years' experience who had worked for the respondent since 2010. She had previously been seriously assaulted by a patient in 2011, suffering broken bones and PTSD. On 23 January 2024, during an incident with an aggressive patient, the claimant kicked out at or raised her leg towards the patient. She immediately reported herself to management, saying she had 'done something really bad' and acted in self-defence. She was suspended on 25 January and dismissed on 1 May 2024 for gross misconduct (attempting to assault a patient). The investigation took over 3 months, during which the claimant received minimal communication.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to unreasonable delay in the investigation (particularly given the claimant's suspension) and lack of communication, which breached the ACAS Code. However, the substantive reason for dismissal was fair: the employer's belief that the claimant had attempted to assault the patient was within the range of reasonable responses based on CCTV evidence, and dismissal was a reasonable sanction given the seriousness and the claimant's senior position. The tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, finding the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed even with a prompt procedure, resulting in zero compensatory award.

Practical note

Even where a dismissal is substantively fair, unreasonable procedural delay (especially during suspension) combined with poor communication can render a dismissal unfair, though a 100% Polkey reduction may apply if the outcome would inevitably have been the same with proper procedure.

Adjustments

Polkey reduction100%

Tribunal found that if the respondent had acted reasonably by dealing with the disciplinary investigation and hearing promptly, the outcome would inevitably have been the same. Mrs Yarker's conclusions were based primarily on CCTV footage which was unaffected by delay. The claimant would inevitably have been dismissed, but sooner. As a result, the compensatory award was reduced to zero.

Legal authorities cited

Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] EWCA Civ 220Fuller v Lloyd's Bank [1991] IRLR 336Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613Post Office v Fennell [1981] IRLR 221Securicor Ltd v Smith [1989] IRLR 356Bell v The Governing Body of Grampian Primary School UKEAT/0142/07BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.112(4)ERA 1996 s.119-126ERA 1996 s.123(1)ERA 1996 s.123(6)ERA 1996 s.122(2)TULRCA 1992 s.207ERA 1996 s.94TULRCA 1992 s.207A

Case details

Case number
2501667/2024
Decision date
5 December 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Registered Mental Health Nurse
Service
14 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep