Mr P Constable (lay representative) For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, Miss T Cook, worked as a personal assistant for Ms K McCune, caring for the respondent’s disabled daughter and working in the respondent’s home. The dispute arose during the first Covid-19 lockdown, when the claimant told the respondent that she was isolating and later said she had completed two weeks’ isolation. The respondent then relied on an account from Mr Traynor that he had seen the claimant walking her dogs on 30 April 2020, and on the claimant’s own responses in which she accepted she had been outside and said she had been on her way to the post office.

The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had been dishonest. It accepted that the respondent’s conclusion was based on the WhatsApp messages of 28 April and 15 May 2020, the note made after the 18 May 2020 meeting, Mr Traynor’s email, and the claimant’s grievance statement. The tribunal held that it was reasonably open to the respondent to infer that the claimant had been presenting herself as self-isolating because she thought she might have Covid-19, and that the evidence available to the respondent supported the conclusion that she had not been self-isolating at home.

On procedure, the tribunal found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, suspended the claimant on full pay, invited her to a disciplinary hearing by video, offered her the chance to provide written answers, and dealt with the grievance before concluding the disciplinary process. The claimant did not give any explanation for her refusal or inability to attend the disciplinary hearing on the dates offered, and did not respond to the written questions. The tribunal also found that the respondent was not aggressive or difficult during the grievance hearing.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell approach, and the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. It placed weight on the importance of honesty in an employment relationship involving care for a vulnerable child in the respondent’s home. The claim of unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made.