In the case of Ms Morna Gunn v Auchingarrich Wildlife Park Morna Gunn was employed as an Animal Keeper at Auchingarrich Wildlife Centre (The Centre), Perthshire. It has a variety of domestic and wild animals, including category one animals, being short claw otters and Scottish wildcats, who could pose a risk to visitors.
Control measures were in place, including to areas that the public did not have access to. That was achieved by signage stating “do not enter” or “staff only” with a no-entry sign, and locks on doors. Visitors would be given a sticker once they had paid. Those attending who were not charged, such as former staff, were given a different sticker.
The claimant exchanged messages on 26 June 2022 with a former colleague Sharon Coutts regarding her visiting the park. The claimant later met Ms Coutts in the feed barn which has food stored in large bins, as well as an office area which has a desk and filing cabinet. It is accessed through a door that has a “staff only” sign on it and is locked. Another employee was at the desk in that feed barn, looking at the computer, and speaking to Ms Coutts, whom he knew. Mr Campbell entered the barn and saw the claimant and Ms Coutts there, with Mr Leitch.
Mr Campbell later called Ms Reid to alert her to a concern that Ms Coutts was in the barn, and he thought that she and the claimant were looking at papers. Ms Reid directed him to speak to Mr Matthew who was in the café area. Mr Campbell did so and was told to ask Ms Coutts to leave. He sought to find her, but when he could not, returned to his duties.
No one from the respondent spoke to the claimant about the visit of Ms Coutts that day. The claimant sent messages to Mr Matthews that day, including ones around 4 and 5pm, and he did not raise a concern with her when replying.
The respondent took advice from an HR consultant with regard to how to handle the allegations in relation to Ms Coutts attending the centre and being with the claimant there. No investigation report was prepared, nor was any written evidence submitted to the claimant. Ms Gunn was subsequently dismissed.
Employment judge Kemp noted that the “procedural flaws were many and serious”, which also breached the Acas Code of Practice.
“No investigation report was prepared, and written evidence was not provided to Gunn before the disciplinary hearing,” he said. “Mr Matthews did not confirm the decision in writing by letter or similar, despite promising to do so. The delay in sending notes of the hearing was pronounced, and wholly unreasonable of itself”.
Kemp said the decision to dismiss did not fall within the band of reasonable responses, as there was “evidence” that former staff members who were known to them were permitted by the previous owners to be in staff only areas.
Gunn was awarded a total of £2,186.93 in compensation.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
