Case 2402198/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Cunliffe v Wigan Borough Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402198/2021
- Decision date
- 21 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Cunliffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs P Cunliffe was employed by Wigan Borough Council as a Complex Dependency Key Worker and had access to the Council’s Mosaic system. The tribunal found that, in relation to GC, a relative and service user, she accessed confidential records on more than 10 occasions across 8 dates, initially to identify the allocated social worker and then to review case notes and related information. The tribunal accepted that she did not have permission from GC or management to access the data, and that the Council’s policies on confidentiality, conflicts of interest and data protection were engaged.
The disciplinary investigation was carried out by Ms Byrne, the disciplinary hearing by Ms Stubbs, and the appeal by Ms Barber. The tribunal found that the Council genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief after a reasonable investigation. It held that the respondent was entitled to conclude that the repeated unauthorised access to confidential personal data, together with the related time-recording issues considered in the process, amounted to gross misconduct under the Council’s policies.
The appeal was conducted as a re-hearing and Ms Barber varied two allegations, including the alleged direct management instruction and one flexi-time allegation, but she still upheld dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant’s long service, previous good record and mitigation were taken into account, but that dismissal remained within the range of reasonable responses because the conduct involved repeated access to sensitive data on a need-to-know system and undermined trust and confidence. The tribunal also found the process fair, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent fairly dismissed the claimant for conduct after repeated unauthorised access to confidential Mosaic records relating to GC; the appeal re-hearing varied some allegations but did not change the outcome. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins 1977 ICR 662
- Sainsburys Supermarkets v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23
- Polkey v Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- band of reasonable responses
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.