Ms D Giles v Heatherleigh Care Limited — 2022

Ms D Giles was employed by Heatherleigh Care Limited from 27 August 2018 until her dismissal on 8 November 2021. A holiday pay claim had been raised in the ET1, but it was not pursued at the hearing. The dismissal concerned four Uber Eats transactions taken from a service user JP's account, including transactions on 8 February (£40.48), 16 September (£8.78), 18 October (£8.92) and 2 November (£9.50). The tribunal found that the last three meals were delivered to the claimant's home address. The claimant said the transactions were an error, gave money to cover the cost and tried to recover the money to JP's card.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had used JP's card and that conduct was the reason for dismissal. It held that dismissal for conduct was within the range of reasonable responses because the claimant held a service user's bank details on her phone and had used them, creating issues of trust, privacy and data security, even if the conduct was careless rather than deliberate. On that basis, the dismissal was substantively fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell-style questions identified in the reasons.

The tribunal also found that the process was procedurally unfair. The respondent did not follow its own disciplinary and grievance procedure or the ACAS Code, did not carry out a full investigation, did not suspend the claimant, and had effectively decided to dismiss before the meeting on 8 November 2021. The claimant was called in by text, given the dismissal letter at the meeting, was not properly asked for her account, and was denied an appeal despite asking for one. The tribunal therefore held that the dismissal was unfair overall and upheld the unfair dismissal claim.

On remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant's own conduct significantly contributed to the situation and reduced the basic award by 50% from £1,295 to £647.50. It accepted the claimant's projected loss to a new employer but held that the delay in starting that job was caused by her conduct, not by the respondent's dismissal process. The compensatory award was limited to four weeks' wages, calculated at £1,480, representing the period it considered a proper investigation, hearing and appeal would reasonably have taken. The total award was £2,127.50, and the recoupment provisions did not apply.