Cases1301720/2023

Claimant v The Knowles Care Home Ltd

5 February 2024Before Employment Judge EdmondsMidlands Westremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct related to failures in managing care home operations over the weekend of 8-9 October 2022, including controlled drug counts, medication stock management, and oversight of resident care. The respondent had reasonable grounds for this belief based on documented incidents and the claimant's admissions. A reasonable investigation was conducted including investigatory and disciplinary meetings where the claimant had opportunity to respond. Dismissal (with demotion offered as alternative) fell within the range of reasonable responses given the vulnerability of service users and the seriousness of care failures, despite the claimant's four years' service.

Facts

The claimant was deputy manager at a care home. On the weekend of 8-9 October 2022, when the manager was off, multiple care failures occurred including a resident fall not being properly documented, controlled drug counts not being done, medication running out, and inadequate resident care regarding fluids and showers. The claimant was the duty manager for these shifts alongside senior care staff. Following investigation, she was dismissed for gross misconduct on 30 October 2022, having been offered demotion as an alternative which she declined. She appealed unsuccessfully. The claimant did not attend the tribunal hearing, citing anxiety, though provided a brief written statement.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The reason was conduct (gross misconduct). The respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of serious failures in managing the care home, had reasonable grounds for this belief based on documented incidents, and conducted a reasonable investigation including investigatory and disciplinary meetings with appeal. Dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses given the vulnerability of service users and the seriousness of the care failures, even though the claimant had delegated some tasks to others.

Practical note

A dismissal for gross misconduct can be fair even where tasks were partly delegated to others, if a deputy manager in a care home setting failed to properly oversee vulnerable residents' care, particularly regarding medication safety and basic care needs.

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Strouthos v London Underground Ltd [2004] IRLR 636Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust [2013] IRLR 854Hope v British Medical Association [2022] IRLR 206Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.123(6)ERA 1996 s.122(2)ERA 1996 s.98(2)ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.94

Case details

Case number
1301720/2023
Decision date
5 February 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Deputy Manager
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No