Miss C Porter v One Fylde — 2025

Miss Porter, a support worker for One Fylde since 2013, was suspended after a September 2022 safeguarding allegation that she had used physical force and abusive language toward a service user. The respondent investigated, held a disciplinary hearing in December 2022 and January 2023, and summarily dismissed her for gross misconduct on 10 January 2023. Her appeal was dismissed on 30 January 2023. The claimant pursued unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and a wages/breach claim that she did not continue.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal based on conduct and found that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct, with reasonable grounds for that belief. It also found that dismissal itself was within the band of reasonable responses in light of the safeguarding context and the claimant’s admissions. However, the tribunal held that the investigation fell outside the band of reasonableness because the on-call report and later statement did not align on key allegations, the alleged slapping and derogatory language were not adequately explored, the co-worker was not reinterviewed, and the claimant’s explanation and alleged motive issue were not sufficiently investigated.

The tribunal further found that the disciplinary procedure was not fair. The claimant was taken by surprise by reference to historic allegations at the disciplinary hearing, the date confusion was only resolved late in the process, and the dismissal letter gave no real analysis of the decision. The appeal did not cure those defects because no further enquiries were made into the claimant’s motive argument or other disputed matters. The tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found that the claimant’s admitted conduct, namely telling the service user she looked pregnant and spraying deodorant on the service user’s incontinence pad, amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract justifying summary dismissal. The judgment on remedy was reserved, so no compensation was assessed in this decision.