Ms Ann Buchanan v Represented by: Ms L Campbell,15 Solicitor Blackwood Homes and Care — 2022

Ms Ann Buchanan, a Support Worker with about 15 years' service at Broom Court, was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegations that she verbally abused and bullied/intimidated resident AB. The tribunal found that the allegations arose from concerns raised in late September 2021, that the claimant was suspended, investigated, and then dismissed by letter dated 28 January 2022. The respondent relied on statements from several staff members and from AB, while the claimant denied the allegations and said they were the product of collusion and influence by another employee.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely misconduct, and applied the Burchell approach. It found that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. In particular, it accepted the evidence that AB had capacity to understand and give her account, and noted that AB's signed statements were consistent. The tribunal also noted that the staff statements were not obviously collusive on their face and that the respondent was entitled to weigh them against the claimant's denials and supporting character references.

The tribunal rejected the argument that the investigation was unfair because the respondent did not place sufficient weight on the claimant's witness statements. It held that those statements were largely character evidence rather than direct evidence of the incidents in question, and that the respondent was entitled to regard them as insufficient to displace the complaints made by AB and the supporting staff witnesses. It also found that the disciplinary and appeal process, taken as a whole, was sufficient: although there had been an initial issue about the allegations set out in the invite and the claimant's wish to be represented by a CAB lawyer, the final disciplinary invite corrected the allegation list and the policy did not permit legal representation in the way requested.

On sanction, the tribunal held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses given the nature of the allegations and the respondent's duties towards residents. It noted the claimant's length of service and absence of previous disciplinary findings, but concluded that this did not make dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the claim for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. No compensation was awarded.