Case 4100215/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Yvonne Welsh South Lanarkshire Council v Counsel — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100215/2022
- Decision date
- 31 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Yvonne Welsh South Lanarkshire Council
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a residential care worker employed since 2005, was dismissed after a November 2020 allegation involving a service user, a police charge on 1 December 2020, and a failure to notify the Scottish Social Services Council of that charge. The respondents relied on gross misconduct. At the end of the evidence, the tribunal refused the respondent's late application to add some other substantial reason as an alternative basis for dismissal because it went beyond the pleaded case and would have prejudiced the claimant.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that Ms McCrea genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of the matters underlying the charges and that conduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It also found that, in practice, the dismissal decision treated the upheld charges cumulatively and that Ms McCrea had not considered any sanction other than dismissal. The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the failure to notify the SSSC was a matter the claimant had not reported, but that the temporary suspension order imposed by the SSSC was not conduct by the claimant; charges 5 and 6 duplicated charges 3 and 4; and it was unreasonable to rely on an unspecified 'something significant' after charges 1 and 2 were not upheld.
The tribunal added that, even if the dismissal were assessed only by reference to the failure to notify the SSSC, dismissal would still fall outside the band of reasonable responses because the claimant had been distressed, believed management would notify the regulator as it had done in 2015, and the respondents were aware of her length of service and distress. The claimant's breach of contract claim succeeded because the tribunal did not regard the failure to notify the SSSC, in those circumstances, as a repudiatory breach that destroyed the trust and confidence in the employment contract. Remedy was not determined at this hearing; a remedy hearing was to be fixed and the claimant was directed to lodge a schedule of loss within 21 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchill 1980 ICR 303
- Graham v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2021) EWCA Civ 903
- Tayeh v Barchester Healthcare Limited 2013 EWCA Civ 29
- Broecker v Metroline Travel Ltd UKEAT/0124/16/DM
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.