Claimant v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, a long-serving local authority social worker and manager of an advocacy rights service, was suspended on 16 March 2016 after allegations linked to historical child sexual exploitation investigations involving former residents of the Q children’s home. The tribunal found that contact during suspension was sporadic and that the claimant was not kept properly informed in line with the respondent’s own suspension policy. It accepted that the respondent was cautious because of the ongoing NCA investigation, but found that the claimant was not given regular updates or copies of meeting records, and that some meetings said by the respondent to have taken place were not proved on the evidence.

The claimant was dismissed on 19 March 2019 for some other substantial reason, with the dismissal letter referring to concerns about safeguarding children and the respondent’s inability to sustain her employment, and the appeal was not upheld on 13 June 2019. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief that there were safeguarding concerns, that the NCA investigation was still ongoing, and that reputational risk formed part of the reasoning. However, it found that the claimant was not warned that dismissal was a real possibility, was not given the material being relied on, and was not provided with a proper opportunity to answer the case against her before the decision was taken.

The tribunal held that the respondent failed to carry out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances and did not act in accordance with natural justice. It was also critical of the appeal process, including the absence of proper notes and the limited material before the appeal panel. Although the respondent had shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal, the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses because of these procedural and evidential failings. The tribunal applied section 98 ERA 1996, the range of reasonable responses test, and the principles discussed in Leach, Lafferty, Z v A, A v B, Mansfield, Harris (Ipswich), Khanum and Polkey.

On remedy, the tribunal did not make a final award at the liability stage. It held, for Polkey purposes, that had a fair procedure been followed the claimant would probably have been dismissed in any event, given the length of the suspension, the continuing NCA investigation, the claimant’s designated suspect status, and the respondent’s view that no alternative role was realistically available. The tribunal therefore directed that remedy would be determined at a separate hearing.