Ms H Meadows v Cherry Tree Lodge Private Retirement Home Limited — 2021

Ms Helen Meadows worked for Cherry Tree Lodge Private Retirement Home Limited from 29 April 2016 and, during the first Covid-19 lockdown, moved into the care home. On 17 May 2020 she went to her daughter's house to look after her grandchildren after her son-in-law had taken her there in a lift from Mr Ferguson. The respondent then required her to self-isolate from 18 May to 31 May 2020 and began a disciplinary process focused on whether that visit, and later her attendance at meetings, put residents and staff at risk.

The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal process was seriously flawed. Mrs Garrett made the initial allegation, suspended the claimant, investigated the matter and chaired the disciplinary hearing, contrary to the ACAS Code and the respondent's own guidance. The allegations in the invitation and suspension letters did not match the reasons given for dismissal, and the claimant was not properly asked about the later allegation that she had come to the hearing by public transport. The appeal was handled by Mrs Nelson, who was less senior than the dismissing officer and did not properly consider the claimant's written representations. The tribunal held that the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and that the Burchell test was not met.

The tribunal also held that the respondent did not establish wrongful dismissal. It found no coherent written policy, or sufficiently clear unwritten policy, prohibiting the contact relied on by the respondent, and it accepted that the claimant had gone to her daughter's house because she was needed to care for young children. The tribunal noted that Mr Ferguson had driven her there, that the claimant had a brief socially distanced conversation with Mr Skidmore in the kitchen, and that the respondent had not shown that these matters amounted to gross misconduct or a fundamental repudiation of contract. The tribunal also recorded that no final monetary award was made in this judgment and that the case would be listed for a remedy hearing.