Member L Grime Tribunal Member S Cardownie Mrs L Murray v , Citizen’s Advice Bureau Astley House Nursing Home Ltd — 2025

The claimant worked as an administrator at the respondent's North Berwick nursing home from January 2019. The tribunal found that after emails in March and May 2022 about reverting to 35 contracted hours and having additional time authorised by head office, a June 2024 query about the claimant's hours led Ms Chohan to review timesheets and instruct that the claimant's hours for the June pay period be 'pinged back'. On 21 June 2024 Ms Chohan told the claimant she was being investigated for unauthorised additional hours, alleged fraudulent activity and falsification of her personal timesheet/hours, and alleged misuse of trust. The claimant was suspended during that call, locked out of CoolCare, and then taken through a disciplinary and appeal process that the tribunal found was handled remotely or at venues chosen for the respondent's convenience.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. It found there had been no meaningful investigation, the claimant was not given sufficient information to answer the allegations, and the disciplinary hearing did not allow her to present the notes and explanations she had prepared. Ms Duffy did not consider a lesser sanction, did not take account of the claimant's length of service or clean record, and did not investigate the points the claimant raised about workload, possible depression, or why hours had continued to be paid if they were unauthorised. The appeal was also found not to have dealt meaningfully with the claimant's grounds. The tribunal rejected any Polkey reduction, but reduced the compensatory award by 15% for contributory conduct and applied a 20% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS code.

The tribunal also held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed because the respondent did not establish a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal. It found that the claimant clocked in and out, was paid for the hours recorded, and there was no evidence of dishonesty or intentional disobedience. On the wages claim, the tribunal held that deductions of £2,050 and £447.95, both described as overpayment, were unlawful because the respondent produced no breakdown or evidence showing how they had been calculated or that the claimant was not entitled to those sums. The operative order was a basic award of £2,574, a compensatory award of £20,462.19 net, notice pay of £1,580.48 net, and repayment of £2,497.95, with recoupment applying to the compensatory award and a prescribed element of £9,981.09 for the period 3 August 2024 to 3 February 2025. The reasons section contains an internal numerical inconsistency on the compensatory figure, but the judgment's order and total payable line state £20,462.19 and £27,114.62.