Ms G Coupland v Represented by Ms M Douglas – Solicitor Pebbles Care Ltd — 2024

Ms Coupland was the Registered Manager of House X and was dismissed on 11 May 2023 after an investigation and disciplinary process concerning alleged financial mismanagement of petty cash, including the use of personal fuel receipts, a chitty for expenditure at Mrs Howett’s café, and the handling of other expenditure records. The tribunal found that Pebbles Care Ltd dismissed her for a reason relating to conduct within section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996, and that this was the reason relied on throughout the disciplinary process.

The tribunal accepted that Mark Williams had reasonable grounds for believing Ms Coupland was guilty of the conduct found against her, and that the employer carried out a reasonable investigation. It noted that Ms Coupland was given the evidence, attended investigatory meetings, and was able to respond to the allegations before the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal also found no procedural unfairness sufficient to take the dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses.

On the substantive fairness issue, the tribunal rejected the argument that dismissal was too severe. It accepted that Mr Williams took account of Ms Coupland’s long service, absence of disciplinary record, and positive supervision feedback, but held that he was entitled to treat the conduct as gross misconduct in a regulated care setting. The tribunal found it objectively reasonable for the employer to place weight on integrity and honesty in relation to home finances, and it rejected the submission that the absence of explicit training or a more precise written process for missing receipts made dismissal unreasonable.

The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the outcome was undermined by the motivations of staff members who raised concerns. It held that, even if some allegations were raised in a context of workplace friction, the investigation identified an evidential basis for the financial mismanagement findings. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed in full, and the appeal against dismissal had previously been unsuccessful.