Ms J Nyarega v Methodist Homes — 2024

Ms J Nyarega worked for Methodist Homes at Ryelands Care Home from 25 April 2019 until 5 October 2022. The tribunal heard claims for whistleblowing detriments, automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal, notice pay/breach of contract, and unlawful deductions from wages. It held that the only potentially out-of-time detriment, the 14 April 2022 request that she leave the premises in the middle of the night, formed part of a series of connected acts and was therefore in time.

On the protected disclosure issue, the tribunal found that Ms Nyarega did not raise the alleged concerns with Ms Francis on 12 April 2022 and did not make the claimed July 2022 call to the CQC. It found that she did raise concerns to Ms Carey on 3 August 2022 about early personal care, medication, intoxicated night staff, lack of risk assessment, a D&V outbreak, and residents eating guinea pig faeces, and that those matters would have been qualifying disclosures on health and safety grounds. The allegations about nepotism and rota fairness did not meet the statutory threshold.

The whistleblowing detriment complaint failed because the tribunal found the acts complained of were not done because of protected disclosures. It held that the night-time request to leave the premises was not unreasonable in the circumstances, that the suspension and later investigations arose from DBS and disciplinary issues that predated the disclosure, and that the third investigation and appeal outcome were not motivated by whistleblowing. The automatic unfair dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was misconduct: Ms Williams believed Ms Nyarega had falsified a daily log entry for resident PL, and the tribunal rejected the submission that evidence had been fabricated or doctored.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim failed under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the respondent had an honest and reasonable belief in misconduct after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses under Burchell and Iceland Frozen Foods. It also found that, even if the dismissal had been unfair, Ms Nyarega would have been fairly dismissed in any event because she was already on a live final written warning. The notice-pay complaint failed because the tribunal found gross misconduct, so no notice pay was due, and the unlawful deductions claim failed because the contract described her as a relief Senior Care Assistant and provided that overtime was paid at the standard rate.