In the case of J D v Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd the Claimant began her employment with Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd (“The Respondent”) on 2 October 2019 as a care assistant, providing personal care to vulnerable residents at Cairdean Nursing Home.
On 18 October 2022, the claimant was arrested and charged with murder. While she remained in police custody for 30 hours, her daughter informed her employer that her absence was due to COVID-19.
The following day, the claimant appeared in court and was subsequently released on bail. The incident was reported in the Daily Record newspaper, which mentioned her name, age, and hometown but did not disclose her employer’s identity.
On 20 October 2022, the claimant’s daughter informed the home manager that her mother had been arrested and charged with murder. As a result, the claimant was suspended with full pay pending an investigation. The respondent cited concerns about “a breakdown in trust and confidence and potentially bringing the company into disrepute.”
A fact-finding meeting was held seven days later, during which the claimant explained her situation. She admitted that her absence was not due to COVID-19 but because she had been in police custody. She maintained her innocence and expressed hope that the situation would be resolved.
On 31 October 2022, the respondent’s investigator submitted a report concluding that the claimant’s dishonesty regarding her absence and arrest had caused a breakdown in trust. Consequently, the claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 14 November 2022. Accompanied by her union representative, she reiterated her previous statements. However, the respondent emphasised the breakdown in trust and the potential reputational damage to the company. As a result, the claimant was dismissed with payment in lieu of notice.
In the years that followed, the claimant struggled with her mental health and was prescribed medication. She began ACAS early conciliation in early 2023 and initiated employment tribunal proceedings on 14 April 2023.
On 21 March 2024, she was acquitted of the criminal charges but remained unfit to work.
The tribunal determined that the claimant’s dismissal was potentially fair due to the substantial reason of reputational damage. However, the tribunal found that the disciplinary procedure was unfair because the risk of reputational damage and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately discussed.
Therefore, the unfair dismissal claim was successful, but the tribunal concluded that a proper discussion would have likely resulted in her dismissal due to the significant reputational risk and cost implications of indefinite suspension. Consequently, they deemed it just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award to nil.
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.
