Ms O Stachowicz v The Good Care Group London Limited — 2022

Ms O Stachowicz was employed by The Good Care Group London Limited from 6 October 2017 and, in January 2022, began a temporary placement caring for BG, who had Parkinson’s disease and related dementia. After a complaint from another carer on 25 January 2022, the respondent investigated allegations that the claimant had been rude and shouted at BG, handled him roughly during moving and handling, been rude to a speech therapist, and was not able to work as part of a team. The investigation relied on statements from several carers and management witnesses, and the claimant denied the allegations throughout.

Following a disciplinary hearing on 10 February 2022, Ms Aldridge upheld all three allegations and dismissed the claimant without notice, treating the verbal and physical abuse allegations as gross misconduct. The claimant appealed. At the appeal hearing on 22 February 2022, Ms Malone-Robertson took account of mitigation raised for the first time by the claimant and substituted the dismissal with a final written warning and a six-month PIP. She described the physical and verbal matters as bad practice rather than abuse, but maintained that the allegation about not working in line with the respondent’s values was made out. On 4 March 2022, after the appeal outcome was conveyed, the claimant said she no longer wanted to work for the respondent and emailed that she could not accept the outcome.

The tribunal applied the ordinary constructive dismissal principles, including the implied term of trust and confidence and the need for an objective assessment of whether the employer acted with reasonable and proper cause. It found that the initial dismissal did not breach that implied term because, on the evidence before the respondent, there was reasonable and proper cause to refer the matter to disciplinary proceedings and dismiss. It also found that the appeal outcome and reinstatement with a final warning and PIP did not breach the contract; if anything, the appeal decision was more favourable to the claimant. Looking at the two matters together, the tribunal again found no breach, rejected the claimant’s suggestion that the process was a conspiracy, and dismissed the claim as not well founded.