Ms P Jones (formerly Gibbins) v Rebba Care Limited — 2024

Ms P Jones, formerly Gibbins, brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and age discrimination against Rebba Care Limited. The tribunal found that Mrs Reeve, the respondent’s owner and responsible individual, decided to dismiss the claimant because she considered the claimant had failed to protect 11 residents from sunburn on 17 June 2022. It also found that Mrs Reeve believed the claimant was in charge on the shift, and that the claimant had directed or been responsible for the residents being left in the sun, the use of Cetraben on residents, the refusal to assist Resident X with personal care, and the failure to assess a resident with possible pressure areas or a moisture lesion. The tribunal did not accept that the allegation about liquid medicines had been a real part of the dismissal decision.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that there were reasonable grounds for the respondent’s substantive belief that the claimant had committed misconduct, and it found the investigation broadly reasonable. It held that the decision to suspend, the conduct of the investigation, and the decision to proceed internally rather than appoint an external investigator from the outset were within the range of reasonable responses in a small business with limited senior staff. However, it found procedural failings, including the sending of the suspension email from a general account, the failure to provide some requested documents, errors in the disciplinary outcome letter, and, most importantly, Mr Reeve’s appeal outcome letter not clearly stating what exact findings were being upheld. The tribunal considered that the lack of a clear written statement of the dismissal findings meant the dismissal was procedurally unfair, so the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and was listed for a remedy hearing.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct. It held that the claimant was in charge of the shift in practice, that residents were exposed to the sun without adequate protection, and that the claimant’s conduct in relation to Resident X showed a lack of care for a vulnerable resident. On that basis, it held that summary dismissal without notice was justified. The tribunal did not uphold the allegation that the claimant failed to measure liquid medicines, finding that point had been included in error and was not part of the real dismissal reason.

The age discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was in the relevant older age group and that Melissia Chadwick was younger, but it found that age was not a material influence on the disciplinary process or the dismissal. It held that the respondent’s treatment of the claimant arose from the respondent’s view of her role, experience, qualifications and conduct on 17 June 2022, not from age. The tribunal also found that Melissia Chadwick was not in the same material position as the claimant, because she had less experience and was not regarded as being in overall charge that day.