Ms L Young and Ms A McGhee v FTS Care Ltd: 4104096/2022 and 4104097/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 2023 |
| Date | 26 January 2023 |
| Published date | 08 February 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
| Citation | 4104096/2022 and 4104097/2022 |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Nos: 4104096/2022 and 4104097/2022
Held in Glasgow on 5-7 December 2022
Employment Judge J Young
5
Ms L Young First Claimant
Represented by:
Ms S Berry -
Solicitor
10
Ms A McGhee Second Claimant
Represented by:
Ms S Berry –
Solicitor
15
FTS Care Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
Mr M Ramsbottom -
Consultant
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimants were not
unfairly dismissed in terms of s98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
REASONS
25
1. In this case the claimants presented claims to the Employment Tribunal
complaining that they had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The
allegations leading to dismissal of the first claimant related to alteration of
medication records held for a young person and removing medication from
the respondent’s premises. The allegation leading to dismissal of the second
30
claimant related to alteration of medication records for the same young
person. Each denied any misconduct in these matters. The respondent
admitted dismissal but denied that was unfair. It maintained that there was
sufficient evidence to conclude that there was gross misconduct by the
claimants and so dismissal was warranted.
35
4104096/2022 and 4104097/2022 Page 2
2. The issues for the Tribunal in respect of each of the claimants were: -
i. What was the reason for dismissal?
ii. Was that a potentially fair reason for dismissal?
iii. If the reason was misconduct, did the respondent believe the claimant
to be guilty of misconduct; had in mind reasonable grounds to sustain
5
that belief; and carried out as much investigation into the matter as
was reasonable?
iv. If so, was dismissal for that reason within the band of reasonable
responses?
v. Was there procedural unfairness?
10
vi. If the claimants succeed, was there contributory conduct?
vii. If the claimants succeed on either substantive or procedural
unfairness, what compensation should be awarded in respect of the
unfair dismissal?
Documentation
15
3. The parties had helpfully liaised in providing Joint Inventories of Productions
for each claimant. The productions for the first claimant were paginated 1-
319 (J1-319) and for the second claimant 1-344 (JA1-344).
The hearing
4. At the hearing evidence was given by: -
20
i. Pauline Spy who had 12 years continuous service with the respondent
and in the last four years held the position of Director of Compliance
and HR.
ii. Derek Scott, a Director and General Manager of the respondent since
its incorporation in February 2009.
25
4104096/2022 and 4104097/2022 Page 3
iii. Kirsty Stuart, Director of Operations for the respondent since August
2019 and who had 13 years experience in care of young people.
iv. Charlene Linning a Residential Care Worker with the respondent and,
at date of hearing, on maternity leave as from May 2022.
v. Phil Woodlock, a part-time Childcare Worker with the respondent for
5
approximately 10 years.
vi. Frances Pollock, a Payroll Officer for Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS
and also Unison Steward for that Health Board.
vii. The first claimant who had been employed in the care sector for
approximately 40 years and for 11 years with the respondent. In that
10
time with the respondent she had been engaged in management
positions but since May 2020 was a Residential Care Worker.
viii. The second claimant who had approximately 22 years experience in
the Care sector and been employed as a Residential Care Worker with
the respondent for over six years.
15
Misconduct issues
5. In the ET3 response from the respondent reference was made to allegations
concerning cash paid for a birthday meal for a young person on 22 February
2022 involving the first claimant. In the course of the hearing some evidence
was canvassed in respect of this matter. However, in the disciplinary outcome
20
letter issued to the claimant by Derek Scott (J224/225) he “made no specific
findings on this matter…”. Additionally, the report following the disciplinary
appeal confirmed that the sanction applied to the first claimant was in “relation
to the medication issue” only. Accordingly, this Judgment deals only with the
issues around the medication prescribed for a young person in the care of the
25
respondent and the records pertaining to the provision of that medication.
6. From the relevant evidence led, admissions made, and documents produced
I was able to make findings in fact on the issues.
Findings in fact
To continue reading
Request your trial