Miss. C Johnson v 92 Higher Drive Ltd t/a Highfield House — 2025

Miss C Johnson worked as a Care Assistant at Highfield House from 16 May 2018 until her summary dismissal for gross misconduct on 26 March 2024. The tribunal found that she was aware of the Respondent’s core values, the vulnerability of the residents, and the importance of maintaining dignity, privacy and a safe, peaceful environment. It also found that she had recently received a verbal warning for a separate incident on 20 February 2024 involving patient allocation and shouting at staff.

The dismissal arose from an incident on 27 February 2024 when the Claimant was on a patient’s floor and, while dealing with a phone call about her missing daughter, shouted loudly on the handsfree phone from inside a resident’s bedroom. The tribunal accepted that she was extremely stressed, but found that she remained in the room, had not obtained permission to take the call there, shut the door when approached by management, and continued the call despite being asked to leave. It found that the resident was scared and upset, and that the Claimant’s conduct disturbed the resident’s peace and privacy.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct and that the Respondent had carried out a reasonable investigation, provided the relevant statements, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered mitigation including the Claimant’s stress and previous work record. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell guidance, it held that the Respondent genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and acted within the band of reasonable responses in deciding that summary dismissal for gross misconduct was justified. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the principles it cited on repudiatory breach and held that the Claimant’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. It found that, despite knowing the Respondent’s core values, she continued to violate the resident’s dignity and privacy and failed to leave the room once she knew the nature of the call. The tribunal therefore held that the Respondent was entitled to dismiss her summarily without notice or payment in lieu of notice, and it dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim.