Mrs Mahwish Junaid v MacIntyre Care Ltd — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mrs Mahwish Junaid’s unfair dismissal claim against MacIntyre Care Limited. She worked as a care worker at a specialist residential home supporting vulnerable adults with learning disabilities and autism. The respondent notified her of dismissal for gross misconduct on 4 November 2024 following allegations that, on 7 August 2024, she argued with and shouted at resident EK and pushed her, causing her to fall against a wall and onto the floor. Her internal appeal was rejected on 9 December 2024.

Conduct was accepted as the reason for dismissal under section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Applying British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell and section 98(4), the tribunal found that the respondent held a reasonable belief in the misconduct, supported by reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The question was whether the employer acted reasonably, rather than whether misconduct had been proved to the standard required in a criminal court. The tribunal could not substitute its own decision for the employer’s.

The claimant accepted being angry and calling EK rude, but denied pushing her or hiding her table. The tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for accepting Enzo Ramos’s account. Charmaine Bayliss confirmed having seen a photograph of EK on her hands and knees before it was deleted. The video did not show the fall, but showed EK trying to enter the cloakroom. Jo Ellis, who decided to dismiss, was entitled to infer that EK wanted to retrieve her table, particularly because Ramos offered another table to calm her. The respondent was entitled to accept Ramos’s explanation for reporting the incident less than a week later; his good working relationship with the claimant also supported his credibility.

The tribunal found that Nicky Croucher could reasonably conduct an initial fact-finding interview before formally setting out the allegations. Those allegations were clearly stated in the suspension letter of 21 August 2024 and the disciplinary invitation. Witness interviews had already taken place when the safeguarding team required further enquiries to pause because the police were taking the lead. Preparing the investigation report before police permission arrived was reasonable given the passage of time. The respondent waited for permission on 18 October 2024 before proceeding to the disciplinary hearing.

The claimant was accompanied at both the disciplinary and appeal hearings and had ample opportunity to put her case. Although she criticised having four days to prepare for the disciplinary hearing, she submitted a detailed personal statement and did not request more time. The tribunal accepted that Ellis considered further interviews, including evidence from colleagues suggested by the claimant. Favourable comments about her did not establish that the incident had not occurred. In addressing allegations of bias against Croucher and Bayliss, the tribunal noted that neither made the dismissal decision and that Bayliss’s evidence confirmed seeing the photograph.