Mr. J. Jones v Royal Borough of Greenwich Hearing: Final Merits Hearing — 2024

Mr J. Jones worked for the Royal Borough of Greenwich as a Telecare Officer until his dismissal on 29 March 2023. The dismissal arose from a call on 2 December 2022 from Service User X, who said she had fallen, hurt her head, broken her glasses and felt sick. The tribunal found that Mr Jones spoke calmly and sympathetically, but after the call he did not arrange a welfare visit, call an ambulance, or contact the service user’s daughter, and instead logged the call and discussed it informally with colleagues.

The respondent investigated after Service User X complained. The tribunal recorded that the investigation involved the complaint, an initial investigation, investigatory interviews, a disciplinary hearing on 27 March 2023 and an appeal hearing on 7 June 2023. It found that the disciplinary process was substantially fair and reasonable: Mr Jones was accompanied, the hearings were conducted fairly, he was told the reasons for dismissal and his right of appeal, and the appeal was heard without unreasonable delay by a different senior manager. Although the invitation letter did not expressly state dismissal as a possible outcome, it referred to gross misconduct and the tribunal held that Mr Jones and his union representatives were on notice that dismissal could result.

On substance, the tribunal found that Mr Eckworth and Mr Mittelstadt genuinely believed Mr Jones was guilty of misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief. The key evidence was the recorded call and the investigation materials. The tribunal rejected the argument that the investigation was unreasonable because colleagues who had not taken the call were not interviewed. It also found that any confusion about whether the 2019 or 2021 telecare policy applied did not undermine the decision, because both policies treated the call as a Category 1 situation requiring an ambulance to be called. The tribunal accepted that a visit that evening was needed to assess the severity of the head injury.

The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It noted that, by the appeal stage, Mr Jones did not significantly dispute that he had acted inappropriately, and the appeal letter showed that his grounds were considered in detail. His unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.