Mrs A Beavis v POhWER — 2023

Mrs A Beavis was employed by POhWER from 19 July 2011 until 5 October 2021, most recently as a Regional Manager responsible for secure settings. In 2020 the respondent’s new CEO, Ms Moulinos, reviewed safeguarding policy and practice. The tribunal found that the respondent’s updated policy required staff and managers to make external safeguarding reports to the relevant local authority, and that this issue was discussed in training and SMT roundtables during 2020 and 2021. The claimant did not complete the level 2 safeguarding training. The central dispute was whether she had been following POhWER’s policy or a different internal reporting practice said to apply in her area.

The tribunal accepted Mrs Hawkes’ evidence that on 7 May 2021 the claimant disclosed that the safeguarding and reporting practices in secure and complex services may not match safeguarding and legal requirements, and that she said in substance that she had been wrong to do this internally first. She was suspended on 10 May 2021. The first external investigation by Safer Edge found no wrongdoing and said POhWER’s written material was contradictory and unclear, but the CEO considered that report inconclusive and commissioned a second investigation by Mrs Jones. The tribunal accepted that Mrs Jones’ interview style was poor and at times aggressive, but found that the investigation still explored the allegations thoroughly and that the claimant was able to set out her case in detail.

The disciplinary panel upheld allegations of failure to follow safeguarding policy and procedures, failure to report safeguarding in line with legislation, failure to appropriately safeguard beneficiaries, and failure in duty of care causing a breakdown in trust and confidence. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct and gross negligence on 4 October 2021 and her appeal was rejected on 2 November 2021. The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal under conduct, had reasonable grounds for its belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation overall. Applying the statutory fairness test, Burchell, and the band of reasonable responses approach, it concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.