Mr L Capper v The Place Young People’s Company Limited — 2021

The claimant, Mr L Capper, was the Registered Manager at High Leys Farm children’s home. After a 30 December 2019 incident involving Child A and deputy manager Jeremy Layton, the tribunal found that the claimant failed to report and record the matter promptly and did not ensure the safeguarding paperwork was completed and escalated to the Responsible Individual, LADO, or the Designated Safeguarding Individual. The respondent’s reason for dismissal was conduct, and the tribunal accepted that this was a potentially fair reason under section 98 ERA 1996.

On fairness, the tribunal held that the investigation and disciplinary process were broadly within the band of reasonable responses. It found that the claimant was given repeated opportunities to explain his account, that he admitted he had not reported the incident or completed the relevant forms, and that the employer was entitled to treat the incident as serious safeguarding matter. The tribunal did note that the appeal process was flawed because Mr Craner relied on later information about WhatsApp messages, emails, and alleged collusion in creating documents, but that allegation was not expressly put to the claimant before it was relied on in the appeal outcome.

For that reason, the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that the omission to put the collusion allegation to the claimant rendered the appeal unfair and so tainted the overall dismissal process. However, on remedy it found that even if the appeal had been conducted fairly, the respondent would still have dismissed him and upheld the appeal. It therefore applied a 100% Polkey reduction to compensatory loss, and a 100% reduction to the basic award for contributory conduct, with the result that no compensation or basic award was payable.

The two unlawful deduction claims were dismissed. The first was the claimed £800 balance of an Ofsted-related payment: the tribunal found this was not a contractual bonus but a salary increment paid monthly and not payable as a lump sum on termination. The second was the claim for £225 for 14 hours said to have been worked above 40 hours per week: the tribunal found the contract provided salaried pay, flexibility in hours, and no entitlement to overtime, and it was not satisfied that any contractual or customary right to additional payment had been shown.