Ms M. Brown v Tender Heart Support Services Limited — 2020

Ms Brown succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Tender Heart Support Services Limited. The tribunal held that the employer had not proved a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It rejected the pleaded case that the dismissal was for an organisational reorganisation or some other substantial reason, and also rejected any suggestion that capability or failure to meet recruitment requirements was the reason. The tribunal found instead that the real reason was that Ms Brown had repeatedly raised serious concerns about staffing, pay, training, care plans, medication, and related working practices.

The tribunal accepted Ms Brown’s evidence that her concerns were genuine, raised in good faith, and expressed professionally. It found that she had applied in writing for the Service Manager role, contrary to the employer’s evidence, and that Mr Akano later appointed Ms Pulle to an identical role without telling Ms Brown. The tribunal held that there was no evidence of a genuine business reorganisation, no contemporaneous documentation supporting it, and no coherent explanation as to why changes said to arise from Newham’s tendering process required Ms Brown’s dismissal in October 2019, before the relevant specification period began.

On procedure, the tribunal found the dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses. Mr Akano had given Ms Brown no advance warning that dismissal was being considered, had reassured her that there was nothing to worry about, had not told her she could be accompanied, and had already decided to dismiss her by 1 October 2019 at the latest. The meeting on 4 October 2019 was treated as an exit interview, there was no discussion of alternatives, and Ms Brown was not informed of any right of appeal. Her appeal was then dealt with by Mr Akano himself, who maintained the dismissal without addressing its substance. The tribunal described the appeal as grossly unfair, both substantively and procedurally.

The tribunal also rejected the Respondent’s contribution argument. It found that Ms Brown’s leaving the dismissal meeting early did not amount to blameworthy conduct and could not have contributed to the dismissal because the decision had already been taken. Remedy was not assessed in this judgment: the tribunal directed that there would be a separate remedy hearing, and any Polkey argument would be considered there.