A Finding of Unfair Dismissal Does Not Always Result in Compensation

An award of compensation might be thought to follow a finding of unfair dismissal as surely as night follows day. However, as a case concerning a care worker accused of stealing money from a vulnerable client showed, that is not always the case.

The worker had, on three occasions, used…

Feb 10, 2023

Nick pampoukidis t uv1rzqpuy unsplash 1024x685

An award of compensation might be thought to follow a finding of unfair dismissal as surely as night follows day. However, as a case concerning a care worker accused of stealing money from a vulnerable client showed, that is not always the case.

The worker had, on three occasions, used ATMs to withdraw a total of £800 from the client’s bank account. She was adamant that she had been told to do so by the client, to whom she had handed over the money. She was investigated by the police but was not prosecuted. Following a disciplinary hearing, however, her employer dismissed her on grounds of gross misconduct.

In subsequently upholding her unfair dismissal complaint, an Employment Tribunal (ET) identified a number of procedural failings in the disciplinary process. Amongst other things, there was no adequate investigation of her alleged wrongdoing. She was deprived of a fair opportunity to put her case in that the disciplinary hearing, rather than being adjourned as it should have been, was held in her absence.

In refusing to award her any compensation, however, the ET found that the employer had reasonable grounds for concluding, on the balance of probabilities, that she had indeed committed theft. Even had the disciplinary process been entirely fair, the ET ruled that her dismissal would have been inevitable.

Rejecting her challenge to that outcome, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) acknowledged that it was unusual for a finding of unfair dismissal to result in no award of compensation. However, the ET had approached the evidence with common sense and was entitled to reach the conclusion it did.

The EAT considered whether she might have kept her job if she had been given the opportunity to put forward her mitigation. A single mother of three children, she had an otherwise clean, 10-year service record and her dismissal was likely to mark the end of her professional career. However, the EAT was satisfied that those matters would have made no difference to the outcome. The ET’s decision to reduce her compensation to zero was really unassailable.

Poultry Workers Not Entitled to NMW for Travel to Farms

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that poultry workers were not ‘working’ while travelling from their homes to farms where they carried out their duties and back again, and were not entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for the time spent travelling. The employees worked on poultry farms around the country. Their employer provided a minibus to collect them from their home addresses each day and take them to the first farm, and take them home again from the last farm.…

Care Home Chef Accused of Breaching COVID-19 Bubble Unfairly Dismissed

Care home owners were possibly the hardest hit of all by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, the crisis did not relieve them of their obligation to treat staff fairly. In response to the first lockdown and the grave risk to residents, a care home owner took steps to organise its employees into an isolated ‘bubble’. A chef was amongst those who agreed to move into the home for the duration of the government restrictions, which were initially…

Redundant Automotive Industry Worker Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

A redundancy process may be genuine and necessary, yet procedurally unfair. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an automotive industry worker who would have kept his job had a selection criterion not been carelessly and mistakenly applied. Amidst a round of redundancies necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the vehicle handling operative was placed in a pool of eight employees, five of whom would lose their jobs. Against his employer’s selection criteria, he was assessed…