Claimant v Methodist Homes

Tribunal found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures until 3 August 2022, so earlier detriments (14 April and 21 July) could not have been caused by whistleblowing. For later detriments, tribunal found respondent's actions were motivated by legitimate management concerns (DBS checks, colleague complaints, investigation of falsified documents) and not because claimant was a whistleblower. Even where managers knew or suspected claimant was whistleblower, tribunal found no causal link between knowledge of disclosures and detriments.

Tribunal found that while dismissing manager Ms Williams knew claimant was a whistleblower, there was no evidence this was the principal operating reason for dismissal. Tribunal satisfied Ms Williams dismissed claimant purely because she concluded claimant had falsified resident records, based on contradictory evidence and claimant's inconsistent testimony. Tribunal also rejected claimant's Jhuti argument that evidence was fabricated, finding on balance of probabilities that documents were genuine and not tampered with.

Tribunal satisfied conduct (falsifying resident care records) was the reason for dismissal and this is a potentially fair reason. Respondent had honest belief on reasonable grounds following reasonable investigation. Despite some flaws in investigation process, tribunal concluded investigation was overall reasonable. Dismissal fell within band of reasonable responses given seriousness of falsifying records for vulnerable residents requiring two-hourly checks, claimant's inconsistent accounts, and existing final written warning. Tribunal also concluded claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event due to live final written warning.

Tribunal found sufficient evidence on balance of probabilities that claimant committed gross misconduct by falsifying resident care records. Therefore claimant was not entitled to notice pay.

Claimant argued she should have been paid at Senior Care Assistant rate (£12.88/hour) continuously from 1 June 2021. Tribunal found claimant's contract clearly stated she was employed as Senior Care Assistant on relief basis only with no guaranteed hours, meaning she would only be paid higher rate when acting up to cover permanent Senior absences. Pay records showed claimant was sometimes paid at higher rate (which she claimed was overtime but contract stated overtime paid at standard rate). Tribunal concluded no unauthorised deductions were made.

Tribunal found claimant did not make protected disclosures on 12 April 2022 to Ms Francis or in July 2022 to CQC as alleged. Tribunal accepted claimant made protected disclosures to Ms Carey on 3 August 2022 regarding health and safety concerns including: early morning care (potentially abusive), medication abuse, staff reporting drunk, lack of risk assessments, D&V outbreak from badly cooked food, and residents eating guinea pig faeces. However, all detriment and dismissal claims failed as tribunal found no causal connection between these disclosures and treatment of claimant.