Mr Crammond, counsel For the v Mr Chadwick, solicitor __________________________________________________ — 2021

Mr J Glanville was the general manager of Sunrise's Westbourne care home. He had made protected disclosures in 2018 about his line manager, Ms Sam King, allegedly carrying out audits without visiting sites. The tribunal accepted that disclosures were made, but found no evidence that they played any part in the later dismissal.

The dismissal followed an anonymous complaint to the CQC from minibus driver Mr Bob Grant. The respondent investigated allegations that the claimant was not working his contracted hours and was frequently absent without authorisation. The tribunal found that the claimant had previously been treated as an exemplary manager, that his supervision records repeatedly stated there were no concerns about timekeeping, and that his role involved broad autonomy over how he managed his hours. It accepted that he had not been clearly told he had to work fixed hours, seek authorisation before leaving, or use Kronos in the way relied on at dismissal.

The tribunal considered Ms Dean's investigation report to be inaccurate and one-sided, with material omitted from the claimant's favour and adverse conclusions not supported by the underlying interviews. It found that Mr Prantl's further investigation did not cure those defects and that Ms Dean remained materially involved in the decision-making. The appeal was handled by Mr McCoy, whom the tribunal found was not independent or impartial because he had also been involved in the earlier process.

On liability, the tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was the respondent's perception that the claimant was not doing the hours, which was a conduct reason, but that the respondent had no genuine belief on reasonable grounds that he had committed misconduct or persistent unauthorised absence. It therefore upheld the ordinary unfair dismissal claim. It also held that the claimant had not been guilty of conduct amounting to repudiatory breach, so the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. Remedy was left to a later hearing; the tribunal declined any Polkey or contributory reduction and said the compensatory award should be uplifted by 25% for ACAS Code non-compliance.