Mr S Jonjo v Curam Domi Solutions Limited — 2024

The tribunal found that Mr Jonjo started work as home manager on 1 December 2021 on a salary of £36,000 and a six-month probationary period. It rejected his case that he had been employed as registered manager from the outset or that he had a separate entitlement to a second registered-manager salary from April 2022. The tribunal found there was confusion in the paperwork about RM and RI titles, but no contractual change and no formal registration of the claimant as RM.

The tribunal found that the May 2022 supervision note was a genuine draft record of a meeting that had taken place, and that the June probation review and July support plan reflected real concerns about the claimant's performance. It accepted that Mrs Henry and Mr Daniel genuinely and reasonably considered that he had not met the required standard. The decision to dismiss was made on 8 August 2022 and communicated on 18 August 2022, and the tribunal found that the reason was failure of probation, not any disclosure or pay complaint.

The tribunal held that the 30 and 31 July 2022 letters were not protected disclosures because they were about the claimant's private pay dispute and his grievance about management conduct rather than the public interest. By contrast, the 8 August email and the 10 and 16 August letters were protected disclosures about understaffing, child safety and record-keeping, but they could not have been the principal reason for dismissal because the decision had already been made by 8 August. The detriment claim based on an allegedly fabricated performance/capability case also failed because the tribunal found no fabrication and found the performance process had begun before any protected disclosure.

The wage and contract claims were dismissed. The tribunal rejected the overtime case, found no contractual basis for the £1,333, £56 or £225.33 items, and held that there was no entitlement to recover the asserted £4,000 training reimbursement. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant accepted that he had been paid in lieu of notice.