Case 2305219/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Joanne Gater v Parkcare Homes (No.2) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305219/2021
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swaffer Representation
- Venue
- ET London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Joanne Gater
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Gater was employed by Parkcare Homes (No 2) Limited from 10 December 2012 and worked as an administrator from about 2015, alongside support worker or bank work. The tribunal found that concerns had arisen by 2020 and continued through January to July 2021 about CFA processing, Eroster entries, petty cash, missing receipts, and related financial records. It found that the respondent took repeated steps to support her, including emails, action plans, site visits, and instructions to address the backlog and errors, but that she remained behind with the work and accepted making mistakes.
The respondent suspended her on 15 July 2021 on full pay and investigated. The tribunal found that she knew the general nature of the allegations from the suspension letter and that, despite her case that she had not received documents, she was provided with the relevant material before the disciplinary hearing. It rejected her complaints that the process was biased, that she was denied a proper opportunity to call witnesses, that her companion was prevented from speaking at the appeal, and that the outcome had been predetermined. It also found that the suspension and the timing of the process were within the band of reasonable responses.
Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell line of authority, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely believed she was guilty of misconduct, that belief was based on reasonable grounds, and the investigation was reasonable. It found that the dismissal letter and appeal letter clearly identified the alleged misconduct, including inconsistent CFA processing, requests for additional top ups above the impressed amount of £1000, incorrect processing of hours and exceptions on Eroster, incorrect enhancements, and falsifying documents for times worked.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The notice pay claim also failed, because the tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss for gross misconduct. The unlawful deduction claim failed because the claimant did not prove that the disputed 10 hours were payable during suspension under a separate contract; the tribunal treated the hours as bank work rather than a contractual entitlement. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn before any evidence was heard, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in gross misconduct, based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice for gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant did not prove a separate contractual entitlement to be paid the disputed 10 hours during suspension; the tribunal found those hours were not properly payable as claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Withdrawn by the claimant before any evidence was heard. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Post Office v Foley
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church
- Agbeze v Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.