Mrs J Elliott v Blaydon Youth and Community Centre — 2022

Mrs J Elliott had long service with Blaydon Youth and Community Centre and no previous disciplinary warnings. The tribunal found that she had been asked to act as a second signatory and to assist with limited financial tasks, but that the day-to-day administration of parent accounts and childcare vouchers remained Mr Ronchetti’s responsibility. It accepted her evidence that she had not been trained in financial administration or childcare voucher systems, that there was no relevant written policy, and that she did not know refunding childcare voucher overpayments was wrong.

The tribunal preferred the claimant’s account of the events of 26 February 2020 and found that Mr Marr knew, or should have known, by February or March 2020 that she was likely to have been involved in the refunds. It found that he nevertheless did not interview her during the investigation, relied on assumptions and redacted witness statements, and treated the matter as one to be proved rather than a fact-finding exercise. It also found that she continued to handle financial tasks while on furlough, which was inconsistent with the respondent treating her conduct as gross misconduct at that stage.

The dismissal was held to be unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because Mr Marr had formed a pre-determined view, failed to investigate exculpatory evidence, and did not act within the range of reasonable responses. The appeal was also found to be procedurally and substantively unsound because Mrs Burnett did not approach it with an open mind, refused to hear relevant points, and relied on inaccurate notes and findings. The tribunal upheld wrongful dismissal as well, finding that the claimant had not committed gross misconduct or a fundamental breach of contract. On remedy, the tribunal made no finding of contributory conduct, no reduction to the basic award, and no Polkey reduction; it said any compensatory award should be uplifted by 20% for ACAS Code breaches, while the final monetary outcome and period of loss were to be dealt with at the remedy hearing. It noted that redundancy proceedings were underway and that her employment would likely have ended within weeks or months in any event.