Case 6016104/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. C A Nunez Dias v Anchor Hanover Group — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016104/2024
- Decision date
- 26 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. C A Nunez Dias
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after an incident on 25 April 2024 involving resident CM. The Tribunal found that the genuine reason for dismissal was conduct, arising from findings that the Claimant physically restrained CM, failed to follow the Respondent's distressed communication and moving and handling policies, and did not seek assistance from the on-call manager or police when the situation escalated.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent carried out a reasonable and thorough investigation, including accounts from residents CM and HM and staff evidence. It accepted that the dismissing and appeal officers were entitled to prefer the evidence of CM and HM over the Claimant's changing accounts, and found that the disciplinary and appeal processes were fair.
The Tribunal concluded that summary dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the band of reasonable responses. It rejected the Claimant's procedural criticisms, including points about suspension, delay, confidentiality, recording of the disciplinary meeting, the role of his companion, and consideration of safeguarding policy. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment adjudicates the unfair dismissal complaint only and states that it was unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- band of reasonable responses
- Sainsburys Supermarket Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance NHS Trust v Small
- British Home Stores v Burchell
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.