Case 1403829/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Rosslyn Green v Consensus Community Support Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403829/2018
- Decision date
- 14 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Rosslyn Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Rosslyn Green worked for Consensus Community Support Ltd from 2012, latterly as a Senior Support Worker, and was summarily dismissed on 28 August 2018 after allegations that she had been asleep on duty on 31 July and 8 August 2018. A disability discrimination claim had already been dismissed on 4 April 2019 because she did not comply with an unless order requiring details of impairment and day-to-day effects.
The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was the respondent's belief that she had been asleep on duty on 8 August 2018. It found the investigation by Vicky Rendell reasonable: witness statements were taken, the claimant texted that she had fallen asleep, and the disciplinary material showed that she accepted she had been asleep on that date. The allegation about 31 July was not proved, but the 8 August allegation was.
At the disciplinary and appeal stages the claimant said she had episodes of absence or PTSD and later produced medical evidence, but the tribunal found the August hospital note did not record PTSD and did not support the explanation advanced. The tribunal regarded the failure to refer her to Occupational Health as the main criticism of the process, but held that dismissal was still within the band of reasonable responses. It also found that even if a medical component had been explored, a fair dismissal could still have followed shortly afterwards. The wrongful dismissal complaint also failed because sleeping on duty was treated as gross misconduct and the respondent proved that basis for summary dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | This claim was dismissed on 4 April 2019 because the claimant failed to comply with an unless order requiring details of her impairment and its effect on normal day-to-day activities; it was not determined on the merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, although it criticised the failure to refer the claimant to Occupational Health after the medical explanation was raised. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the respondent proved gross misconduct and that the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- J Sainsbury Plc v Hitt
- Polkey test
- s.123 ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.