Mr L Maturine v Caretech Community Services HELD by: CVP — 2022

Mr Maturine worked for Caretech Community Services as a maintenance operative from 12 April 2009 until his dismissal on 10 December 2020. The tribunal found that his role involved some contact with service users and therefore had a safeguarding element. It also found that he had previously disclosed a 2015 arrest for damage to property and a 2018 arrest for theft.

On 20 July 2020 he was arrested for alleged possession of cannabis, resisting arrest and sexual assault. The tribunal found that he was released on 21 July 2020, informed a colleague the same morning, and later that day work continued. He met Katie Munt on 22 July 2020 and was suspended on full pay. After an investigatory interview on 31 July 2020, the respondent considered the matter further in light of the likely delay in the outstanding sexual assault case, and by the time of dismissal only that allegation remained outstanding.

The respondent convened a disciplinary hearing, adjourned it to allow more time, and then dismissed him on 10 December 2020. The dismissal letter said the reason was the unreasonable delay in reporting the concerns to Miss Munt and that Mr Maturine, rather than Mr Schofield, should have raised the matter. The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal related to conduct, that the open-ended suspension was not the reason for dismissal, and that the respondent was entitled to treat the matter as serious given the nature of its business and the handbook provision referring to failure to disclose an arrest as gross misconduct.

Although the claimant complained about not receiving documents earlier, not being told he was in disciplinary proceedings, and his appeal not being dealt with, the tribunal held that those matters did not tip the balance against the respondent. Applying sections 98(1), (2) and (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it found the dismissal fair and within the band of reasonable responses. The additional complaints of no written reasons for dismissal and no holiday pay were dismissed after the tribunal noted they were not in the claim form and were withdrawn insofar as they existed.