Mr D Koshy v Glebe Housing Association Limited — 2020

Mr D Koshy was employed by Glebe Housing Association as a Health Care Assistant from 29/11/2012 until his summary dismissal on 17/6/2019. The respondent investigated allegations arising from the night of 27-28/1/2019 concerning resident SF, namely neglect of basic care and needs, falsification of care records, and failure to follow instructions for two-hourly turning and checks. The dismissal was upheld on appeal on 29/8/2019.

The tribunal applied s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the conduct dismissal authorities in British Home Stores v Burchell and J Sainsbury plc v Hitt. It found that the respondent had a reasonable belief in the misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal relied on the CareDocs audit log, the Event Edit Log and CCTV evidence, which together supported the respondent's case that the claimant had entered false entries showing turns at 3:00 and 5:45 when the CCTV did not show those turns taking place.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanations, including that the CCTV view was incomplete, that he had relied on other HCAs to carry out the care, that staffing levels were insufficient, that the Event Edit Log had been altered, and that lack of training caused the issue. It noted that he had been trained on CareDocs and had used it for years without complaint, and that there was sufficient staffing on the night in question. The tribunal also found that the respondent had a reasonable basis to conclude that the claimant had not accepted wrongdoing during the disciplinary process.

Although the process took time, the tribunal held that the delay was explained by absences, the claimant's holiday, the volume of material, and other concurrent investigations. It found that the respondent followed the ACAS Code, held multiple investigation meetings, disclosed the evidence in advance, allowed the claimant to be accompanied, and had independent managers at each stage. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim failed and the listed remedy hearing was vacated.