Mrs Denise Waller v Opus Care Limited — 2021

Mrs Denise Waller worked for Opus Care Limited as an Administrator/Receptionist from 17 October 2018 until her summary dismissal on 13 May 2021. After an audit of new staff files in April 2021, the respondent raised 24 allegations of misconduct across three areas: recruitment checks, confidentiality and clear desk compliance, and deletion of computer files. The disciplinary hearing on 6 May 2021 found all allegations proved and dismissed her for gross misconduct; the appeal heard on 19 May 2021 was dismissed.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had received inadequate training and support for the recruitment vetting work, and that the respondent had not always made the CQC requirements clear. It found that several of the alleged failings were better understood as poor performance rather than misconduct. It also found that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for the allegations about deleted computer files because it had assumed the claimant was responsible without a reasonable investigation.

On the clear desk and confidentiality allegations, the tribunal accepted that the claimant may have stored some confidential material in or around the reception desk, but found the evidence unreliable because she had been instructed to leave immediately and was not given a chance to clear her desk. It preferred the claimant's evidence on the storage of some sign-in sheets and noted that, if managers had regarded this as a major issue, it should have been raised earlier.

The tribunal found that the claimant did make an incorrect email confirming that all pre-employment checks had been completed for a new starter when they had not. That led to the individual starting work without the right to work in the UK, and the tribunal found this allegation was based on reasonable grounds and followed a reasonable investigation. Although the tribunal had sympathy for the claimant and noted that others in the organisation had also failed in their responsibilities, it held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses because of the seriousness of that incident and that the procedure, including appeal, was fair. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore not well-founded and did not succeed.