Case 1600548/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Jones v Kaleidoscope Project — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600548/2018
- Decision date
- 30 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs L Jones was employed by Kaleidoscope Project from October 2012 as a Criminal Justice Substance Misuse Worker and was dismissed with effect from 21 November 2017 for gross misconduct. The dispute arose after she became socially and emotionally involved with AB, who had been referred by her to Powys in 2015 and later moved into Cyfle Cymru. The tribunal found that, during the material period in late 2017, AB was a service user of Cyfle Cymru and a very recent ex-service user of Powys, and that the claimant knew he had been a service user despite saying she believed he was a volunteer or member of staff.
The tribunal accepted evidence from the respondent's witnesses and found that the claimant contacted AB on social media, went for a walk with him out of hours on 6 November 2017, and telephoned her supervisor that same day to say she was developing a relationship with him. It found the respondent was entitled to conclude that a personal relationship had developed, that the claimant's account of her knowledge of AB's status was not credible, and that the Conduct and Boundaries Policy prohibited serious breaches of conduct and boundaries, including relationships with current and, in some cases, previous service users.
Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited in the judgment, including Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods and Hitt, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief, based on a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had committed gross misconduct. It found the disciplinary and appeal processes were fair, that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses, and that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim therefore failed. For the same reasons, the tribunal dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim, holding that the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss her.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996, following a reasonable investigation and a fair appeal. No separate remedy was awarded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal rejected the notice pay / repudiatory breach claim because it found the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell [1980] ICR 303 EAT
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones [1983] ICR 17 EAT
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23 CA
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.