Employer Justified in Dismissing Support Worker for Professional Misconduct

OUTCOME: Dismissed

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001599/2025 Held in Glasgow on 20 and 21 October 2025 And 23 and 24 March 2026 Employment Judge M [NAME] Claimant Represented by [NAME] (20-21 October 2025) [NAME] [NAME] (23-24 March 2026) [COMPANY]) Respondent Represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL] Counsel

JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claim is not well-founded and is dismissed.

REASONS 1. The claimant lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal on 25 June 2025 claiming unfair dismissal. The respondent entered a defence resisting the claims, asserting that dismissal, by reason of gross misconduct, was fair.

2. On the first day of the final hearing, the claimant was represented by Ms [APPELLANT] from [COMPANY], assisted by Ms [RESPONDENT]. The respondent was represented throughout by [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. I heard evidence from the respondent’s witnesses, [NAME] [RESPONDENT] who chaired the disciplinary hearing and from Ms [NAME] who heard the appeal. I then heard evidence from the claimant. On the second day of the hearing, the claimant continued his evidence in chief. Unfortunately, proceedings required to be halted due to a medical emergency and could not be resumed on the third day which had been allocated for this final hearing.

3. It was not possible to re-list until two dates in March 2026. The claimant was then represented by [NAME] [APPELLANT], of [COMPANY], assisted by Ms [NAME].

8001599/2025 Page 2 4. At the resumed hearing, the claimant’s evidence was concluded and the Tribunal also heard evidence from the claimant’s former co-worker, [NAME] [APPELLANT]. Following evidence, I heard oral submissions from [NAME] [APPELLANT]. The claimant’s representatives passed up written submissions which [NAME] [NAME] supplemented with oral submissions. I have taken account of these submissions in my deliberations and conclusions.

5. A joint file of productions was lodged which was referred to throughout the hearing. Findings in fact 6. On the basis of the evidence heard and the productions lodged, the Tribunal finds the following relevant facts admitted or proved.

7. The claimant worked with the respondent as a [NAME] worker from 12 August 2018 until he was dismissed on 18 April 2025.

8. The claimant initially worked alongside two other male [NAME], who provided 24/7 care and [NAME] to a [NAME] in his home. [NAME] lacks capacity and has an adult with incapacity certificate. He requires [NAME] with all aspects of daily living.

9. There was a requirement that the [NAME] for [NAME] were male only due to historic inappropriate behaviour towards women and children. 10. [NAME]’s brother is involved with the care of and decisions made about [NAME]. He had previously held welfare guardianship but that lapsed.

11. The respondent’s policies which apply to the claimant include the [NAME], Adults with Incapacity Policy, Decision Making and Deprivation of Liberty Policy and Disciplinary Policy.

12. Of particular relevance is the Code of Conduct and Professional Boundaries Policy, which states at section 9 under the hearing “Professional boundaries and conflicts of interest” that “Maintaining professional boundaries and addressing conflicts of interest are essential to ensure the integrity of care relationships and the objectivity of business decisions. All Team Members must avoid developing personal relationships with the people we [NAME] beyond a professional scope and refrain from sharing personal contact details or engaging on social media with them”.

13. Records and information management policy states at 2.12 that “all colleagues have a duty to ensure that all records are accurate, complete and maintained as up to date. Inaccurate or incomplete records will jeopardise a consistent standard of service for the person being supported and may even put them at risk”.

14. Employees are also subject to the SSSC code of practice for social service workers. This includes at para 2.1 the need to “be truthful open, honest and trustworthy”. Under para

8001599/2025 Page 3 2.6 it states that they must “declare issues that might create conflicts of interest and make sure they do not influence [their] judgement or practice”. Para 2.8 requires workers to “form open, positive relationships and maintain professional boundaries with individuals, colleagues or carers that respect their dignity, wellbeing and safety” and at 4.2 to “take necessary steps to reduce the risks of individuals harming themselves or others”. Para 6.6 states that workers will not “put [themselves] or other people at unnecessary risk”.

15. The claimant undertook extensive mandatory training including adult [NAME] and protection refresher training in February 2025, data security and protection and data protection rights and responsibilities training in August 2024, adults with incapacity refresher training in November 2023, safeguarding adults refresher training in May 2023, and code of conduct and professional boundaries and positive behaviour [NAME] training in February 2023.

16. During 2024, an electronic diary system was introduced (called [NAME]) as well as a new shift scheduling system (called Deputy). There were technical difficulties with these systems which meant that staff had to revert to the paper based method of recording the service users daily activities in a daily diary and hand over information in a communication book to ensure continuity of care.

17. In December 2024, one of the [NAME] who worked with the claimant to [NAME] [NAME] passed away suddenly. This put additional pressure on the service.

18. On 22 February 2025, when a service review was held by [NAME], the social worker advised [NAME], deputy line manager, that the claimant had told her on 20 February 2025 he had taken [NAME] to his home on New Year’s Day.

19. When [NAME] carried out a service visit on 24 February 2025 to complete governance checks, the daily diary for January 2025 could not be located; she checked the [NAME] and there were no electronic recordings documented for that date.

20. On 11 March 2025, the claimant was invited to attend an investigation meeting, which took place on 12 March 2025 at which [NAME], the claimant’s line manager and her deputy [NAME] were in attendance to discuss allegations about the claimant’s conduct and breaching professional boundaries and in particular:

1. Taking a [NAME] to your home on the 1st January 2025, which is in breach of the [COMPANY] with Incapacity, Decision-making and Deprivation of Liberty Policy;

2. Failing to document within the daily diary or [NAME], details of [NAME] provided and places visited on 1st January 2025, which is in breach of the [COMPANY], Records and Information Management; and

8001599/2025 Page 4 3. Failure to declare a conflict of interest, namely concerns over maintaining a professional relationship with a [NAME] which is in breach of the [COMPANY] of Conduct and Professional Boundaries Policy.

21. During the investigation meeting, the claimant confirmed that he had taken [NAME] to his home for dinner on New Year’s Day with his brother’s consent. The following notes were taken at the meeting by [NAME]: [NAME] “You said to me after the event happened, if I had known beforehand, we would have said it wasn’t the right thing to do and crossing professional boundaries. That is serious. Did you record anywhere that you took him to your house at new year” [this is paragraph three] [NAME] “It should be in the daily diary. I did take him to mine and I did get permission from his brother. I would not have done this at all otherwise and I didn’t see any problem. It will be recorded somewhere. I didn’t record that I asked for permission or offered but I am sure. I wrote down that he came to my house and had a great new years dinner with me and my family. I even have pictures of [[NAME]] at mine during it with my family and sent them to [[NAME]’s] brother, he was very pleased with it. Was me, the wife, my daughter, the wean and dog. [[NAME]] had a great time, even asked when he is coming back. I jokingly said aye maybe next year. It was a lovely gesture I felt. [NAME] did compliment the service. Even you complimented me. Last thing I want to do is cause or do anything wrong. LMK I understand this is due to a cross on professional boundaries. As a human, can see why this would appear to be a nice gesture but as a professional and with our policies, procedures, and professionalism, it crosses that. [NAME]…. I risk assess everything, even going to the shop, will there be kids or women etc. I don’t believe that doing what I did and taken him to mine with the brothers approval was breaking the professional boundaries. We treat him like family and the brother treats us and wants it this way too…” 22. After a discussion about [NAME] and swapping shifts, the claimant is noted as saying “So is this done now, I’m glad it was nothing serious, had been racking my brain wondering what I had said that was wrong but like I said, I got the brother’s approval and both him and [[NAME]] was very happy about it. Wouldn’t have said that to [NAME] if thought it would be a big deal or doing something wrong”.

23. On 13 March 2025, the claimant sent an e-mail to [APPELLANT] stating, “I would like to put on record that I did not report the visit to my house after the event as it says in paragraph three (LMK) if that had been [the] case I’m sure I would have been told that I had broken rules as soon as I discovered this information, so when the social worker came

8001599/2025 Page 5 to visit I volunteered the information to her and told her about visiting my family for dinner. I would not have told her if I had been told previously that I had made a mistake and possibly putting my career in danger please include this information with the investigation”. 24. [NAME] replied that she would attach the e-mail to the investigation report and advised she had messaged him the contact number and name of a union representative. 25. [COUNSEL] produced an investigation report with 11 appendices dated 24 March 2025. She stated in that report that, “the investigation process included trying to review the recorded documentation within the service for the [NAME] provided on the 1st of January 2025. The daily diary could not originally be located, however, on a visit to the service on 19th March 2025, this was then found and there was no written recording for 1 January 2025. The tiered governance checklist was reviewed and showed that there was no evidence of recordings”. The report included a recommendation that all three allegations were dealt with under the disciplinary process.

26. By letter dated 27 March 2025, the claimant was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting to discuss the above allegations, which took place on 9 April 2025, chaired by [NAME], registered manager for housing [NAME] services.

27. The invite letter set out the policies which would be breached if the allegations were established and enclosed all documentation to be referred to as part of the decision- making process, including the investigation report and the various policies and codes of practice relied on. The claimant was advised that he could be accompanied by a trade union representative or work colleague, but he did not bring a companion.

28. Notes of the disciplinary hearing were made by [NAME], deputy manager in another service. The notes included the following: [NAME] It is no doubt that you did take him to your home. You have admitted that outright, you’ve come across as being very honest in that regard”…. [NAME] We had been going through a turbulent time in the service. Staff members had left, and on long-standing staff member had died. The place was in turmoil. The [service users] family was upset with prior staff and were concerned for his welfare. [He] was self- harming, agitated and asking for [the member of staff who died]. The family then stated that the [[NAME]] couldn’t go home with them for New Year’s Day, so I suggested to family that I could take him to my home for New Year’s Day and they approved this. I then asked [NAME] if it would be ok, and she said yes it would be lovely. Upon my return to the service, I told [NAME] that I would be taking him home for that day and she said that would be nice. I told [NAME] also and no-one said anything about it”. [NAME] did you tell [NAME] before the 1st of Jan

8001599/2025 Page 6 [NAME] that is my recollection. If I told her when I saw her again on the 4th of Jan, then why didn’t she tell me that it wasn’t OK? [NAME] during the investigation meeting, you did not say this when asked at the time or say this in your defence when questioned. You’ll have been given an opportunity to read your investigation notes as you will have needed to approve the minutes. [NAME] I can send an email stating this I can show you the email – [which is forwarded and printed out....] [NAME] Ok so your defence is that you did speak to [NAME] prior to the 1st of Jan and there were no objections” [NAME]. [NAME] asks if the service users brother also gave permission and whether he held welfare guardianship [NAME] on reflection, do you understand why this is being investigated [NAME] I didn’t at first, but being here now and having it explained to me yes 100% [NAME] you would have completed all your training, including protection and safeguarding. You have over 10 years of experience and it is a concern that someone as experienced as you did not think anything wrong of this situation [NAME]…not one person told me it was wrong… [NAME] …do you not understand that even showing [[NAME]] personal private photos of your family is unprofessional and should not be happening [NAME] I just want to be honest and this is what happened. It will never happen again [NAME]…In your initial statement, you state that you risk assess taking [[NAME]] any where there could be women and children, knowing this and knowing the risks involved, why did you think it is ok to take him to your home where there are women and children? What is the difference between taking him to the shops and taking him to your home. [NAME] the difference is that no-one would be sitting beside him except me. He is very child- like and is fine with children but is sexual towards women and girls. The family members there all have PGVS, they are a social worker and a police officer. [NAME] again the fact that none of them raised a concern is red flag to me…. [NAME] On the 1st of Jan did you record any daily notes? [NAME] in the communication book, I have it with me… [NAME] To me, this looks doctored and the word “my” has been written in after the fact….

8001599/2025 Page 7 [NAME] No it hasn’t, sometimes you don’t get a lot of room to write things, so they get squashed up. [NAME] that is not how it looks to me. That looks like it has been doctored. Is there anything else you wish to tell me before we adjourn so I can review all the evidence and minutes from today’s meeting in the hope of reaching a conclusion [NAME] I feel I was doing a good thing…..I did cross a boundary, but I always had the best interests of [NAME]] in mind….” 29. After a short adjournment [NAME] advised that he had decided that he could not come to a decision that day but wanted to take his time to review all documents and evidence again after which the meeting would be resumed. The claimant was advised that he was suspended from that date on full pay.

30. When the meeting was resumed on 18 April 2025, after some discussion, the claimant was advised that he was summarily dismissed. That decision was confirmed in a letter dated 22 April 2025.

31. The claimant was advised that the first allegation was upheld in full given he admitted taking [NAME] to his home.

32. With regard to allegation 2, which was upheld in full, under “findings”, it is stated, “I find that there was no engagement with management in relation to this action and no records were available at the time of the investigation as to what [NAME] was given by you on the 1st of January 2025. Further to this, the entry in the communication book that you submitted as evidence at the disciplinary hearing, also brings into question the integrity of your actions due to what looks like the entry being altered/doctored after the fact. This communication book/evidence that you produced at the hearing was not available to the investigating manager at the time of investigation within the service”.

33. Under allegation 3, which was upheld in full, the findings stated as follows: “I find that there was no discussion with management about the visit to your home or that the brother had given his approval. This causes concern that there was no consideration from you that this is a conflict of interest. You made the decision to take a [NAME] back to your own home with multiple members of your family being present, and you did not see how this, at the time, was an issue/conflict. Suggesting and agreeing to take [[NAME]] to your home with your family members present is a breach of boundaries and you did so fully aware of the identified risks associated with [[NAME]]. Not only did you put [[NAME]] at risk, but you also put yourself and your family members at risk.

8001599/2025 Page 8 We expect all [NAME] employees to follow and adhere to the company’s policies and procedures. It is further note that [the service users] brother is not welfare guardian and currently the local authority holds guardianship. As an employee of [NAME], you have responsibility to inform management of this conflict of interest which you failed to do. I also find your actions demonstrates an abuse of power and authority, and it is evidence through the disciplinary hearing that you do not understand the severity of your actions. You had no authority or power to make this decision in relation to [[NAME]] and neither did the brother. You failed to check this with management. I do not believe in the balance of probability that you “ran this passed” the deputy manager and that she said to you “that will be nice”. I find that management were not aware of what took place on the 1st of January 2025 until it was raised as a concern from [NAME]. I also find that your actions do not meet relevant standards of practice and have failed to demonstrate safe ways of working. Your actions and decision-making process has demonstrated to me that you have an unprofessional relationship with [[NAME]] and his brother”.

34. The letter advised that having carefully considered all the evidence and mitigation put forward, the claimant was summarily dismissed from gross misconduct, alternative options having been considered namely final written warning and/or demotion. The claimant was advised that a referral would be made to the PVG and the SSSC in line with relevant policies. He was advised of his right of appeal.

35. The claimant appealed to [APPELLANT] on the grounds that the sanction was too severe given his unblemished record for seven years and no account was taken of the fact that he was honest and open and that he volunteered the information given. He asserted that he was not given an impartial and fair hearing throughout; disputed the manner in which the hearing was conducted by [NAME] [NAME] alleging he made several contradictions between both hearings; that his contribution was not completely allowed and that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself or participate in a reciprocal conversation.

36. An appeal hearing took place on 6 May 2025 chaired by [NAME], area manager, with notes taken by [APPELLANT], area manager. The claimant confirmed that he was happy to continue with the appeal despite not being accompanied by a trade union representative or colleague.

37. The notes of the meeting include the following: [NAME] did you record in the daily diary that you took the [NAME] home? [NAME] I believe there was some under handed actions on this part as the diary for that month was taken away for this investigation. [NAME] you record this?

8001599/2025 Page 9 [NAME] I recall recording it in the communication book, however I’m not sure and the diary is no longer in service. I believe I told [NAME] before I took the person home however she stated it was after. [NAME] was in the service on 4th January 2025. When we get the disciplinary hearing [NAME] stated that [NAME] did not know anything about it until the social worker letter outlining the issue…. [NAME] Do you understand you put yourself at risk? [NAME] I do now yes I have been open and honest from the whole incident and believe I have had not [NAME] and believe communication has been poor. I have felt isolated and had no one to bring to this meeting…. [NAME] you do understand that the boundaries were crossed? [NAME] I do now however I wasn’t initially I am gutted that it has been seen in this manner having worked in the service every year. In hindsight I would never had done this. I just did it as I was aware this was acceptable in the past… [NAME] ….I believe I was not heard at the meeting when discussing what I said and what [NAME] stated and made out to be a liar. He doesn’t know me but knows [NAME] and shares an office with her so how can he be impartial…[NAME] started to say he believed me than turned to say in all probability I believe [NAME]. This isn’t impartial…. [NAME] – [you say] previous managers knew about this and it was never an issue? [NAME] That’s right, I can remember this happened before at least twice a year. There was no malicious intent. I have dedicated myself to this job [NAME] Do you feel you have been able to be fairly heard at this appeal meeting? [NAME] I do. I know what I have done and this at not time was meant to have any negative affect [sic]” 38. By letter dated 13 May 2025, the claimant was advised of the outcome of the appeal. In regard to appeal point 1, [NAME] concluded that there was evidence to confirm that the disciplinary manager considered alternative options, but that termination was the appropriate option due to the seriousness of the allegations. While a formal written warning was considered, this was not deemed appropriate because the claimant did not accept or understand the severity of his actions during the disciplinary hearing, with consideration being given to length of service and that he had no previous conduct warnings. Further the claimant should have understood his responsibility and accountability as an experienced [NAME] worker.

39. She noted that there was no evidence of the visit being recorded in the daily diary and that it was clear from the communication book that the entry initially did not state “my

8001599/2025 Page 10 home” only “home” and that the “my” was entered after the fact leading to further concerns over trust and confidence. This appeal point was not upheld because the claimant’s actions failed to comply with [NAME] and the SSSC code of practice.

40. Under appeal point 2, she stated that the claimant had been provided with opportunities including the appeal process to state his case. She confirmed that under their disciplinary policy the investigating manager would normally be the line manager unless they were a witness or it was otherwise inappropriate. The disciplinary hearing was conducted by an impartial manager, and the appeal by an independent manager in line with the policy.

41. The claimant was advised by letter of 23 June 2025 that no action would be taken in regard to his registration with SSSC. In their outcome letter SSSC noted that “on reflection your actions were not in line with SSSC codes of practice in relation to professional boundaries. As the behaviour is deemed low seriousness and the risk of repetition is low I would consider the public protection risk as low…your actions were not malicious or intended to cause harm, you believed you had the permission of your manager and the consent of the family and you recognised and assessed any potential risk”. Relevant law 42. Section 98(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) provides that, in determining whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show the reason for dismissal and, if more than one, the principal one, and that it is a reason falling within s.98(2) or some other substantial reason of a kind to justify the dismissal. Conduct is one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal.

43. Section 98(4) provides that where the employer has shown that dismissal was for a potentially fair reason, the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair depends on whether, in the circumstances, including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking, the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason, to be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

44. In a dismissal for misconduct, in [COMPANY] v [NAME] 1980 ICR 303 the EAT held that the employer must show that: i) he believed the employee was guilty of misconduct; ii) he had in his mind reasonable grounds upon which to sustain that belief, and iii) at the stage at which he formed that belief on those grounds, he had carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in the circumstances.

45. In considering the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the dismissal the Tribunal must consider whether the procedure followed as well as the penalty of dismissal were within the band of reasonable responses ([COMPANY] –v- Jones 1982 IRLR 439). [ADDRESS] of Appeal has held that the range of reasonable responses test applies

8001599/2025 Page 11 in a conduct case both to the decision to dismiss and to the procedure by which that decision was reached ([NAME] v [NAME] 2003 IRLR 23). The relevant question is whether the procedure falls within the range of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer might have adopted. Observations on the evidence and the witnesses 46. The respondent challenged the credibility of the claimant’s witness [NAME] [APPELLANT]. However, I considered him to be a credible witness. He suggested that the issue of taking [NAME] to the claimant’s house was discussed several times in December and he believed it to have been discussed in the presence of Ms [NAME]. He believed that she was at least aware of it and would not have made any issue of it because this was something which had been done before by other colleagues. I noted that [NAME] was quite comfortable giving evidence and was not phased when he was pressed by [NAME] [NAME] in relation to his credibility and he defended his actions convincingly.

47. As it happens however, nothing turns on this witness evidence, because although his evidence was that Ms [APPELLANT] knew that the claimant was due to take [NAME] to his house, he was not clear about when that was or whether he had overheard it or was just aware of it. 48. [NAME] [NAME] also submitted that there were inconsistencies in the claimant’s evidence even in regard to the evidence he gave in this hearing as well as by reference to what happened during the disciplinary process. [NAME] [NAME] highlighted four inconsistencies which he relied on, namely that the claimant contradicted himself in regard to what he said he had told Ms [NAME] on 4 January and what he had said in the e-mail; his position on whether he had carried out a risk assessment before the visit seemed to change; he was not clear about why he had not applied for jobs; he contradicted himself in regard to whether he said he treated [NAME] like family.

49. I agreed that these contradictions called the claimant’s credibility into question. There were additional apparent contradictions discussed further below. Certainly at the very least, the claimant had a clear tendency to avoid answering questions directly and to go off on a tangent about other matters, whether deliberately to deflect or otherwise.

50. I agreed with [NAME] [APPELLANT] that the way that the claimant gave his evidence was redolent of the way that [NAME] [APPELLANT] described his contributions in the disciplinary process. In particular, the claimant would veer away from the point and make lengthy contributions which did not answer the question he was asked.

51.

Accordingly, whenever there was a dispute on the evidence, I accepted the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses who gave evidence in a clear and measured manner.

8001599/2025 Page 12 Deliberations and decision 52. This is a claim for unfair dismissal only, as was confirmed at the outset of the hearing.

53. Although there was a reference to breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) in the ET1, the claimant’s representative confirmed that related only to unpaid notice pay which, if successful, would be taken account of in any compensation for unfair dismissal.

54. Another issue which was raised during the second tranche of the hearing related to the claimant’s indication in the ET1 that he was seeking re-employment. This was not something which the claimant had indicated at the outset of the first day of the final hearing, and it was not apparent that was his intention at that time.

55. When that matter came up, I adjourned the hearing to allow the claimant’s representatives to discuss with him whether he was indeed still seeking re-employment. Following a short adjournment, the claimant’s representatives confirmed that he had decided given the passage of time that he no longer wished to return to work for his former employers, and accordingly any remedy related to compensation only.

56. The focus of my deliberations is whether dismissal was unfair. In assessing whether a dismissal for gross misconduct is fair or unfair, I must consider each element of the [NAME] test, set out above, and I turn to that now. Reason for dismissal 57. In a claim for unfair dismissal for misconduct, for dismissal to be fair, as noted above, the [NAME] test requires the employer to show that they had a genuine belief that the employee was guilty of misconduct and that they formed that belief on reasonable grounds, having carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in the circumstances.

58. The claimant’s representatives, helpfully and appropriately, accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant had committed misconduct, thus satisfying the first limb of the [NAME] test. Reasonableness of decision to dismiss 59. The key question for the Tribunal is of course whether the respondent acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for misconduct. The question is whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for the respondent to dismiss the claimant for misconduct, and not whether this Tribunal would have dismissed the claimant in these circumstances, there being a range of reasonable responses open to the respondent. One reasonable employer may react in one way whilst another reasonable employer may have a different response.

8001599/2025 Page 13 Reasonable grounds for belief 60. In considering whether or not dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances, the second limb of the [NAME] test must be considered, that is whether or not the respondent had in mind reasonable grounds upon which to sustain the belief that the claimant was guilty of misconduct. 61. [NAME] [APPELLANT] argued that the respondent had established reasonable grounds for their belief in respect of each of the three allegations of misconduct.

62. In regard to the first allegation, that the claimant had taken [NAME] to his home on New Year’s Day, [NAME] [RESPONDENT] argued that the respondent had established reasonable grounds to [NAME] their belief that this amounted to misconduct. That was by reference not least to the fact that the claimant had admitted taking [NAME] to his home.

63. He argued that the respondent had established that the claimant had breached a number of their policies and in particular the SSSC code of practice and the respondent’s own code of conduct in regard to professional boundaries, which specifically states that personal relationships with [NAME] and his family must be avoided. He submitted that the respondent had established that the claimant was aware of these policies, given as a [NAME] worker who was regulated by the SSSC he knew he required to work to the standards set down in their code of practice; and further the claimant had undertaken extensive training, including training on 11 May 2023 in regard to this matter, meaning that the conclusion of [NAME] [APPELLANT] that the claimant knew that what he did was wrong was reasonable. It was reasonable for him to conclude that someone with the claimant’s length of service would believe that it was unacceptable to take a [NAME] to his own home, not least given how clear the policies are on that point. Further, the respondent relied on the fact that the claimant was aware that [NAME] had a history of inappropriate behaviour to women and children; that there was women and a child in attendance; and he should have been aware that he would be putting [NAME] as well as his family at risk.

64. With regard to the claimant’s key defence that he had either explicit or implicit permission from his deputy line manager to take [NAME] to his home, [NAME] [RESPONDENT] argued that it was reasonable for the respondent to disbelieve the claimant about that. In particular, it was reasonable for [NAME] [APPELLANT] to believe that the claimant had told Ms [APPELLANT] of the visit to his home only after the visit and not before it. He argued that [NAME] reasonably concluded that there may have been a discussion after the event, relying on the investigation minutes in which the claimant only stated that he had permission from [NAME]’s brother and he did not say that he had permission in advance. 65. [NAME] [APPELLANT] also relied on the fact that the claimant’s position changed at the disciplinary hearing, when he contended that he had told Ms [NAME] in advance. When [NAME] [APPELLANT]

8001599/2025 Page 14 challenged the claimant he produced the email which he had sent after reading the investigation minutes but the e-mail did not say anything about the claimant telling Ms [APPELLANT] about the arrangement in advance of 1 January. [NAME] [NAME] argued that it was reasonable for [NAME] [APPELLANT] to place weight on that given the claimant had approved the investigation minutes.

66. Further the claimant said that he relied on the fact that the communication book and daily diary were missing when the investigation began, but the claimant produced the communication book at the disciplinary hearing for the first time. [NAME] [NAME] argued that the inference could be drawn from these documents that the claimant was not telling the truth regarding getting Ms [APPELLANT] approval for the visit, or even that she knew about it. 67. [NAME] [NAME] argued that, while views may differ about whether the claimant was lying or not, and another person may have believed him, in the circumstances it was reasonable for [NAME] [NAME] to disbelieve him, and that conclusion was within the range of reasonable responses open to the respondent; and the respondent did not reach conclusion that no reasonable employer could make.

68. To [NAME] the argument that the respondent had not established reasonable grounds, the claimant relied on the fact that a key statement that he made at the outset of the investigation meeting had been omitted from the minutes, and that the response to that from Ms [NAME] that she was only told after the event had been added and was untrue.

69. However, I note that the investigation notes of the meeting conducted by Ms [APPELLANT] were prepared by Ms [APPELLANT] and sent to the claimant to check. The claimant responds in an e-mail as follows: “I would like to put on record that I did not report the visit to my house after the event as it says in paragraph three…if that had been the case I’m sure I would have been told that I had broken rules as soon as I disclosed this information…” 70. The claimant does not state in this e-mail, as you might expect him to given he states that it is a key statement, that he had permission from Ms [APPELLANT] beforehand. Indeed, the claimant came back to the matter in the investigation meeting and repeated that “I got the brother’s approval and both him and [[NAME]] was very happy about it..wouldn’t have said that to [NAME] if thought it would be a big deal or doing something wrong”. He did not however at that stage take the opportunity to mention that he had Ms [NAME] permission or that she knew about it. Nor did he subsequently suggest any correction to the minutes in that regard if they were inaccurate. Rather, in his e-mail he picks up on the fact that Ms [NAME] said “you said to me after the event happened, if I had known beforehand, we would have said it was not the right thing to do….” 71. It is not until the disciplinary hearing that the claimant raises the fact that once it was agreed that he would take [NAME] to his home on New Year’s Day, he told that

8001599/2025 Page 15 Ms [NAME] would be taking him home for that day and she said that would be “nice”. This is the first time he raises this, despite the opportunity to do so beforehand.

72. He is then asked directly whether he told her before 1 January, and his response is “that is my recollection. If I told her when I saw her again on 4th January, then why didn’t she tell me that it wasn’t ok”. 73. [NAME] [NAME] then says “you did not say this when asked at the time or say this in your defence when questioned” during the investigation meeting and continues, “You’ll have been given an opportunity to read your investigation notes as you will have needed to approve the minutes”.

74. Although the e-mail was not attached to the investigation minutes as requested, the claimant advised [NAME] [APPELLANT] that he had sent an e-mail and he showed this to [NAME] [NAME] who considered it at the time.

75. It was not clear from the evidence whether he says he did or did not discuss it with her on 4 January, because the claimant’s position seemed to change whether he was saying that he did or did not tell her on 4 January. However, he does not appear to have considered that what she may have meant was that she was told after the claimant had told the social worker. This is what [NAME] [APPELLANT] appears to have understood at the resumed disciplinary hearing on 18 April 2025.

76. The claimant’s representatives argued that the reference to “after the event” “plainly” indicates awareness shortly after the visit rather than at the much later point suggested by the respondent, and that it was clear from reading [NAME]’s admission that this was before [NAME] knew.

77. I did not however accept that it could be clearly inferred from the reference to “after the event”. The claimant appears to have assumed that it was the next time he saw her, but that is not self-evident. I accept that a reasonable interpretation was that it was after the claimant had told the social worker.

78. The claimant’s representatives invited the Tribunal to accept that Ms [NAME] had knowledge of the visit prior to it happening, giving her ample opportunity to intervene and raise any concerns. However, the question is of course not what I think but rather whether it was reasonable for [NAME] [NAME] to take from what was said that it was after the social worker was told.

79. I consider that it was reasonable for [NAME] [APPELLANT] to rely on the investigation minutes, where the claimant not only had an opportunity to consider them, but also where he did in fact make comments on them in an e-mail. He did not at the time state that what he now

8001599/2025 Page 16 says was a key statement relating to him having said he had permission from Ms [NAME] was missing.

80. I accept too, that it was reasonable for [NAME] [APPELLANT] to conclude that the claimant was aware of his obligations in terms of the codes of practice and the respondent’s policies given that the claimant was well aware of his obligations as a regulated worker and also given the extent of training and refresher training which he had received.

81. While the claimant suggested in his ET1, and in his evidence to this Tribunal, that staff had taken [NAME] to their homes in the past, at least inferring that notwithstanding the policies they were not adhered to, he did not mention that in the investigation meeting or in the disciplinary hearing, until he suggested in the appeal apparently for the first time that he was aware it was acceptable in the past. This may or may not have been the case, and indeed [NAME] [NAME] suggested in very general terms that it did happen, but the respondent was not made aware of that during the disciplinary process in any event.

82. Given these facts, I accept that [NAME] [NAME] had reasonable grounds on which to found his belief that the claimant was guilty of this allegation.

83. With regard to the second allegation, which related to the claimant’s failure to document within the daily diary or [NAME] details of [NAME] provided and places visited on 1 January 2025, in breach of the records and information management policy, the respondent argued that there were reasonable grounds for them to believe that such misconduct had been established.

84. In [NAME] of that conclusion, [NAME] [NAME] argued that there was a clear policy about keeping daily records (information management policy) and that the claimant was aware of the requirements of that policy, which can be inferred from what he said during the disciplinary process. While there was a dispute about whether the [NAME] was working properly, the claimant in any event knew that paper records were to be kept and that they should include the details of what [NAME] was doing that day. 85. [NAME] [APPELLANT] also relied on the fact that the claimant did not confirm that he had kept a record in the daily diary and provided no reason for failing to record 1 January home visit in the daily diary but relied solely on the communication book. However, the purpose of the communication book was not to record daily events but to record communications between the [NAME] worker for continuity of care. Further, Ms [NAME] in the investigation report said that having found the daily diary there was no record for 1 January but the claimant did not challenge that conclusion. When asked at the disciplinary hearing whether he had recorded it in the daily diary, he referred only to the communications book, which he took to the disciplinary hearing but he did not take or ask for or challenge the assertion that it was not referenced in the daily diary.

8001599/2025 Page 17 86. The claimant relied on the fact that the communication book and daily diary were missing when the investigation began. While there was some confusion regarding the whereabouts of the daily diary and the communications book (which I understood the claimant said were initially removed for the investigation) by 19 March 2025, as stated in the investigation report, the daily diary had been found.

87. The claimant’s position at the investigation stage was that “it should be in the daily diary…it will be recorded somewhere. I didn’t record that I asked for permission or offered but I am sure I wrote down that he came to my house and had a great new year’s dinner with me and my family…” 88. Despite that, the diary having subsequently been found by 19 March, there was no such record. The claimant’s representative expressed some concern about the fact that the daily diary although found was not lodged, but the claimant did not at any time (even giving evidence to this Tribunal) suggest that the assertion that there was no entry in the daily diary relating to this matter was incorrect. I understood that the claimant accepted at the time that he had not included the visit in the daily diary, as he did not raise it again in the disciplinary hearing and although he provided no explanation at the time (or since) why the matter was not recorded there. The claimant himself produced the communications book at the disciplinary hearing, and it was considered by [NAME] [NAME].

89. It was clear therefore from the evidence that the visit was not recorded within the daily diary (although it was not produced) and that a record in the communications book was not what was being referenced in the allegations and recording it there was in any event not sufficient given its purpose.

90. In particular, I accept that the claimant knew, not least from training about the information management policy, of the requirement to keep a daily diary, and that was clear from the discussions at the investigation meeting and subsequently that the claimant was aware of his obligation in that regard. While the Tribunal heard a good deal of evidence about the [NAME] and the problems with it, I considered that to be something of a red herring, because the claimant made reference to obtaining the relevant diary sheets to replace the [NAME] system which he said was not working.

91.

Accordingly, I find that the respondent’s conclusion that this amounted to misconduct was based on reasonable grounds.

92. With regard to the third allegation, namely a failure to declare a conflict of interest, again the respondent argued that they had reasonable grounds to [NAME] their belief in the claimant’s misconduct, again relying on the fact that the policies were clear and the claimant knew about them not least because he had attended training.

8001599/2025 Page 18 93. Again, I considered that the respondent had reasonable grounds upon which to establish that this allegation was made out, not least because of the policies and the fact that the claimant was made aware of their terms.

94. Further, this allegation relates to the obligation to maintain a professional relationship with [NAME]. Here again the claimant seemed to vacillate in his evidence somewhat during the hearing in regard to his developing relationship with [NAME]. However, during the investigation meeting the claimant stated, “I don’t believe that doing what I did and taken him to mine with the brother’s approval was breaking the professional boundaries. We treat him like family and the brother treats us and wants it this way too…” 95. Given that reference to [NAME] and the brother’s expectations, if there was any concern that relationship had become or was becoming personal, [NAME] [APPELLANT] argued that the claimant had a professional duty to seek advice on that and he did not.

96.

Accordingly, I conclude in relation to the third allegation that the respondent had reasonable grounds upon which to sustain their belief that the claimant was guilty of misconduct in that regard. Reasonableness of investigation 97. The third limb of the [NAME] test requires the Tribunal to consider whether the respondent had formed that belief after carrying out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in the circumstances.

98. The respondent argued that the respondent’s decision not to conduct any further investigation was a reasonable one, on the basis of what the claimant told the respondent at the time. The claimant took particular issue with the investigation, as set out in the ET1, and asserted that the respondent did not carry out sufficient investigation into the allegations. I considered each of the claimant’s concerns in turn. Inaccuracy of the minutes and failure to include e-mail correction with investigation report 99. The claimant complains that the minutes of the investigation meeting were inaccurate. He states that his key statement, that he had told Ms [APPELLANT], in advance, was completely omitted. The claimant states that he submitted his objections in writing, and that he asked these to be attached to the investigation meeting notes, but they were not. 100. [NAME] [APPELLANT] argued that the claimant could not rely on any failure to attach the e-mail to the minutes because it was produced at the disciplinary hearing and was taken into account by [NAME] [NAME]. Any prejudice that might have been caused by the omission was cured. 101. I have dealt above with the claimant’s concerns about the inaccuracy of the minutes and I have found that despite opportunities at the time, the claimant failed to raise with the

8001599/2025 Page 19 respondent the fact that there was a key statement missing at the time or in the subsequent e-mail. 102. It is correct to say that the claimant asked for the information contained in that e-mail to be included with the investigation, and that Ms [NAME] confirmed that she would attach it to the investigation report but clearly failed to do so. However, the claimant raised this at the disciplinary hearing, produced the e-mail, it was printed out, and it was clearly considered by [NAME] [APPELLANT]. The key difficulty for the claimant here is that he did not raise this central plank of his defence, which is that Ms [NAME] knew and he had permission. He had the opportunity to raise that in the e-mail and subsequently but he did not do so. 103. In evidence he said that he felt overwhelmed and without [NAME] at a very difficult time for him and his colleagues and [NAME] not least because of the sudden death of the long-standing colleague. However, the claimant had subsequent opportunities to correct any inaccuracies or what might otherwise have been misunderstandings on the part of the respondent, but he did not take those opportunities. 104. I accept the respondent’s submission that any failure on the part of the respondent to attach that e-mail did not render the investigation unreasonable where [NAME] [NAME] considered it and took it into account in his decision making. Failure to interview [NAME] and [NAME] 105. Although these matters were not highlighted in the ET1, they were raised as concerns during the hearing and accordingly [NAME] [APPELLANT] was content to deal with them. 106. The claimant argued that [NAME] [APPELLANT] should have interviewed [NAME] to establish whether he had told her before and she had said words to the effect, “that’s nice”. 107. [NAME] [NAME] relied on [NAME] [NAME] position was that Ms [NAME] did not agree in advance and that he reached the conclusion of the basis of the investigation minutes and that any interview on this was unlikely to change evidence before him. [NAME] accepted that some employers might have gone the extra step of interviewing her, it cannot be said that no reasonable employer would have taken that approach. 108. The claimant submits that failure to interview Ms [APPELLANT] renders the investigation unreasonable. The claimant’s representative pointed out that the Tribunal had not heard from either Ms [NAME] or Ms [NAME], so that we do not know why she did not record what the claimant said in the original investigation nor why she did not include the claimant’s email confirming his position nor why she did not remove Ms [NAME] from the investigation and take a statement from her. The claimant submits that we would expect to hear from Ms [APPELLANT] if the respondent believed her account of events to be true. The claimant argues that if the matter had been properly investigated any finding

8001599/2025 Page 20 that [NAME] knew of the visit either before without objection or after without comment would have been a material consideration for the respondent in forming a genuine belief about what had happened and that the failure to address central conflict demonstrates an investigative process that was neither sufficiently nor thorough nor balanced nor reasonable. 109. The argument that Ms [NAME] should have been interviewed as well is an attractive one, on the surface at least. However, as noted above, neither the respondent nor this Tribunal accepts that the claimant mentioned during the investigation that he had prior permission from Ms [NAME]. No mention having been made of that at the time of the investigation, or subsequently by the claimant despite the opportunity to do so, it may be said to be reasonable for the respondent not to have interviewed Ms [RESPONDENT] in the context of this investigation. 110. The first time the claimant raises the fact of having prior permission it is in the disciplinary hearing. In response to the question whether he had told [NAME] before 1 January, the claimant picks up [NAME]’s reference to knowing after the event and assumes that she meant that was when she came to the service on 4 January. When it was put to him that he had not raised this in the investigation meeting and that he had been given an opportunity to consider the notes, he made reference to (and produced) the e-mail. 111. The claimant did however in the e-mail bring up his concerns with the reference to the minutes where it was stated that he had reported the visit to his house “after the event”. Interviewing Ms [NAME] might have cleared up any ambiguity about what Ms [APPELLANT] meant about “after the event” and whether the claimant’s assumption that she meant the 4 January was accurate. 112. The key point of course is that it would have made no difference, because there was nothing turning on whether Ms [NAME] was told on 4 January or only after it had been mentioned to the social worker. This was not mentioned until the disciplinary hearing and the e-mail did not say that he had told Ms [NAME] beforehand. Even if he had mentioned it to Ms [NAME] on 4 January, and she had not taken issue with it, still that would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome, since this was not prior permission. 113. I therefore agreed with [NAME] [NAME] that it would have made no difference to the outcome to have interviewed Ms [NAME] because she would say she did not know (and she had not referenced that at the investigation meeting). 114. Given that, I could not say that no reasonable employer would have dealt with the matter this way, and I could not say that this failure, if it was a failure, rendered the investigation unreasonable or the decision out with the range of reasonable responses.

8001599/2025 Page 21 115. The claimant also raised in evidence and submissions the suggestion that the respondent should also have interviewed [NAME] [RESPONDENT], given he is now said to have overheard Ms [NAME] giving permission and he counter-signed the entry in the communications book. Again, in retrospect, it appears that it may have been appropriate to interview him too given the evidence at this hearing. However, the focus is on what was known to the respondent at the time. 116. There was no mention of [NAME] [RESPONDENT] knowledge during the investigation meeting (although there was of course no mention then of the claimant having said that he had prior permission in any event). There was no mention in the follow up e-mail. Even during the disciplinary hearing after he said that he had told Ms [APPELLANT], the claimant said “I told [APPELLANT] also and no-one said anything about it” but not that [APPELLANT] was present or overheard. The claimant did not say you should ask [APPELLANT] or the like at any time during the disciplinary process, although he had the opportunity to not only at the investigation but at either of the disciplinary hearings or the appeal. 117. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that it would have been reasonable to interview [NAME] [NAME] or put another way that the failure to interview him meant that the investigation was not a reasonable one or was not within the range of reasonable responses. Concerns about integrity of investigation (missing documentation) 118. The claimant also raised concerns about the integrity of the investigation and in particular the missing documentation. This relates to the claimant’s argument that the communication book was present and available at all times, and it recorded the visit and was not referenced at the investigation stage. 119. [NAME] [APPELLANT] relied on the fact that the claimant did not say that the daily diary was present and available. When the claimant was asked about the daily diary in the disciplinary hearing the claimant referenced and produced the communication book. However, that book does not record daily activities but is designed to assist with continuity of care for staff taking over on shift. 120. Nor did the claimant say at the appeal that Ms [APPELLANT] had “sabotaged” the investigation by removing the daily diary. Further, the claimant did not challenge the conclusion of the investigation report that there was no record for the 1 January when the daily diary was found. He had the opportunity at the disciplinary appeal hearing to raise any concerns that but he did not. 121. There was a lack of clarity about the evidence surrounding the documentation to be relied on. As I understood it, both the daily diary and the communication book were removed by Ms [NAME] for the purposes of the investigation, although by the time of the investigation meeting the respondent appeared to have neither to hand.

8001599/2025 Page 22 122. Although the daily diary had surfaced by the time the investigation report was written, and although the claimant had suggested to Ms [APPELLANT] that the visit was recorded there, there was no record in the diary, the claimant took no issue with that, and only produced the communications book at the disciplinary hearing. 123. Given that any missing documentation surfaced by the time of the disciplinary hearing, I did not understand how the fact that it went missing at some point could have prejudiced the claimant, and he did not argue that at the time in any event. This is particularly given the claimant did not at any time say that the conclusions about the daily diary were wrong. 124. The claimant in submissions argued that [NAME] [APPELLANT] was “too quick to pass judgment” on the insertion of the word “my” and assumed it was “doctored” without giving the claimant the opportunity to explain it or seek to verify it. I noted in the minutes that the claimant denied that it was written after the fact, explained that there was not a lot of room and was asked if he had anything else to say. I have noted the claimant in evidence to have said that he did in fact add “my” after the event, but I understood him to say that it was immediately after he wrote it. He did not however say that at the time and he did not follow up when [NAME] [NAME] asked him if there was anything else he wanted to say. 125. With regard to the claimant’s challenge that [NAME] [APPELLANT] was disinterested and unprofessional, [NAME] [NAME] relied on the fact that this was not put to [NAME] [NAME] in cross examination and in any event it was not raised by the claimant at the appeal. 126. [NAME] [APPELLANT] was not asked about this, but in any event, I got no indication from the evidence or the notes of the meetings that would [NAME] any suggestion that [NAME] [NAME] was disinterested and unprofessional. Quite the contrary, I thought [NAME] [NAME] took the matter very seriously indeed, and despite what was said by the claimant, he decided to give further consideration to the circumstances before making his decision. 127. The claimant’s suggestion in evidence that he was “cut off” by [NAME] [NAME] is not at all apparent from the notes of the meetings, until, as [NAME] [NAME] pointed out, towards the end of the second disciplinary hearing when it was apparent that the claimant was going off on a tangent, which he was apt to do in evidence as well. 128. Any “change” in position from believing the claimant to be honest, to expressing concerns about the entry in the communication book would be explained by the information which [NAME] [NAME] was being presented. 129. In regard to the sufficiency of the investigation, the claimant’s representatives relied on the line of cases which suggests essentially that the employer’s investigation should be particularly rigorous when the effect on the employee may be far reaching or blight the employees career (A v B 2003 IRLR 405, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v [NAME] 2010 EWCA Civ 522 [NAME] v [NAME] Trust

8001599/2025 Page 23 2012 EWCA Civ 138 and [NAME] v Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0081/16). They argued that where a finding of misconduct will blight an employee’s career, the standard of fairness and thoroughness required from employer will be high and Tribunals should scrutinise the procedures followed very carefully and consider whether fairness of the process as a whole has been compromised, and the investigation should include evidence that may point to innocence. 130. This was indeed a case where the claimant was referred to the [NAME] and could have lost his license to practice. I agreed that in such circumstances any investigation should be particularly rigorous. I also agreed that a reasonable employer could have deemed it appropriate to interview Ms [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. However, given the information that the respondent had at the time of the investigation and the disciplinary hearing and as discussed above, I could not say that no reasonable employer would have proceeded without having interviewed either or both those individuals. I conclude in the circumstances, and given the information available to the respondent at the investigation stage and subsequently, that the investigation here was sufficiently thorough. 131. I conclude that the decision to dismiss was based on a genuine belief that the claimant had committed misconduct of the type alleged, and that belief was formed after a reasonable investigation. Procedural fairness 132. The range of reasonable responses test applies to the procedure undertaken as well as decision to dismiss. While the claimant’s representatives referenced the ACAS code of practice, I did not understand the claimant to be relying on any breach of any specific provision of the code and indeed no uplift was sought. 133. As I understand it, the claimant relies on two elements in particular which amount to procedural unfairness and rendering the decision, from a procedural point at least, unfair. Allowing Ms [APPELLANT] to lead the investigation 134. In ET1 the claimant raised concern about the fact that Ms [APPELLANT] led the investigation but she should not have because she was implicated. 135. [NAME] [NAME] argued that this challenge was without foundation because at the investigatory meeting there was no allegation that Ms [NAME] had already given approval. 136. The conclusion regarding this criticism must be based on what was known by the respondent at the time. As discussed above, the claimant did not at the investigation stage say that Ms [APPELLANT] had given her approval, or raise concerns at any time, even in the appeal, that Ms [NAME] should not have led the investigation. As [NAME] [NAME] pointed out, Ms [NAME] drafted the investigation report in any event not Ms [NAME].

8001599/2025 Page 24 137. With regard to the criticism that [NAME] [NAME] worked closely with Ms [NAME], meaning that he was not impartial, [NAME] [NAME] argued that there was no evidential basis to [NAME] that, which was just an assertion but nothing more. The only reference made by the claimant is that at the appeal [NAME] [APPELLANT] believed Ms [APPELLANT]. However, [NAME] [APPELLANT] disbelieved the claimant for the reasons relied on above. 138. The claimant does not present any argument to [NAME] the assertion that [NAME] [NAME] was not impartial, beyond the fact that, after hearing from him, he preferred the position of Ms [NAME]. As discussed above, there were objective grounds to [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT] conclusions regarding not believing the claimant. The fact that they worked closely or shared a room would not be sufficient to [NAME] an allegation of partiality. 139.

Accordingly, I conclude that the fact that Ms [NAME] was involved in the investigation was not a breach of procedure, the respondent having no reason to believe, at the time of the investigation, that she was implicated and the matter having been addressed at the disciplinary hearing and subsequent appeal. Denial of chosen companion 140. The claimant also relied in his ET1 on the respondent’s denial of his chosen representative. 141. [NAME] [COUNSEL] submitted that the claimant did not bring up any practical consequences of this alleged denial. Although the claimant could have brought a union representative, he chose not to. [NAME] [COUNSEL] relies on the undisputed minutes which make it clear that the claimant was happy to proceed at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal unaccompanied. At no point did the claimant say in evidence that he was unable to properly represent his position at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal, so he cannot point to any prejudice. 142. As I understand it (although there was not much focus on this matter in evidence) the claimant’s concern was that he was only informed the day before his disciplinary hearing that his chosen “witness” would not be permitted to attend. He argues that this gave him no time to make alternative arrangements, leaving him to attend the hearing unaccompanied and without [NAME]. As I understand it his chosen witness was [NAME] who is a police officer and involved in union affairs at work. The claimant argued that the conditions which the respondent set, that his companion should be a trade union representative or a colleague, meant that he was denied the opportunity of any companion because one colleague had passed away and the other had resigned, and the company did not have a union. 143. Again, while this argument may appear to have substance, as [NAME] [APPELLANT] pointed out, the real difficulty for the claimant is that in the minutes of the disciplinary and appeal meetings (which were unchallenged) it is noted that as an introductory point the claimant was asked,

8001599/2025 Page 25 “I just need to confirm that you understand you have the right to be accompanied, you are not accompanied, are you happy to continue?” and the box beside that in the notes is ticked. 144. This indicates that the claimant was happy to proceed at the time, and the claimant did not raise the matter (although he was asked in the appeal outcome letter to raise any queries relating to the outcome as soon as possible). It was not until he completed the ET1 was raised that this concern was mentioned. 145. The claimant did mention in evidence the difficulties he had securing union representation, but despite the fact that the respondent did not recognise a specific union, the claimant would be permitted to be accompanied by a union representative and Ms [COUNSEL] had given him contact details one in March. 146. Further, other than the general concerns the claimant made about feeling unsupported at a difficult time, the claimant did not point to any concrete matters which resulted in any prejudice or unfairness given the lack of a companion. The claimant had of course by the time of the appeal had a number of months since his suspension to reflect on the matter when he was not attending work. 147. Further in the appeal notes the claimant is stated to have confirmed that he had the opportunity to set out his appeal in full and felt that the meeting was fair and reasonable. 148.

Accordingly, I concluded that there was no procedural unfairness in this case such as to make dismissal outwith the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. Reasonableness of the sanction of dismissal 149. I then turned to consider whether the sanction of dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to equity and the merits of the case, including the size and administrative resources of the respondent. 150. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] argued that the sanction was appropriate in the circumstances. He submitted that [NAME] [NAME] had taken full account of the alternative of a final written warning. However, he made clear in evidence that he did not believe that the claimant understood the gravity of the situation and that he did not appreciate that he had breached policies or procedures, not least given he volunteered the fact that he shared family photos. He explained in evidence that he believed that he needed to protect service users and that he was not convinced that further breaches would not happen so that he could not be sure that a final written warning would keep people safe. [NAME] [NAME] submitted this supports the conclusion that the sanction of dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. 151. The claimant’s position in general is that he believes that he has been too harshly treated in circumstances where he had gone above and beyond in his dedication to the service

8001599/2025 Page 26 and [NAME] at a difficult time after the sudden death of his colleague and long term carer of [NAME] who was greatly affected by that change. He views what he did as an act of kindness, in offering to take [NAME] to his house on New Year’s Day when his family were on holiday. 152. The claimant relies on being honest and transparent by volunteering the information and that he would not have told the social worker if he thought it would endanger his career. He argues that it is clear from the disciplinary minutes that he had demonstrated genuine remorse and insight into the concerns raised, and he repeatedly acknowledged during the hearing that he understood the seriousness of the matter once it was fully explained to him. He recognised he had crossed a boundary, admitting that it was an error to take [NAME] home but that it was one lapse of judgment that was not reflective of his behaviour over the seven previous years taking [NAME] into his home. 153. The claimant also relies on the fact that he was not suspended until the first disciplinary hearing on 9 April 2025 at a time when the service was disrupted due to changes in staffing and the claimant was covering shifts on his day off to ensure that the service users hospital appointments were met. In particular, he was not suspended by Ms [NAME] or Ms [NAME], the two managers with direct knowledge of the matter, after the investigation meeting which underlines the fact that the incident was not treated as being serious. This emphasises that even while under investigation, he was trusted to deliver care for a vulnerable [NAME] and was the preferred member of staff to do so, which further undermines the seriousness of the allegations. This would be highly unusual if management had a genuine belief that the claimant posed a risk. The approach of management also reflects an approach that lacks clarity, proportionality or consistency. 154. The claimant also sought to rely on the fact that he was advised, on 23 June 2025, that no action would be taken in regard to his SSSC registration following their investigation The claimant relied in submissions on the decision of the SSSC which stated that while his action was misguided, it was made in good faith and came from compassion and care he had for his client. The claimant also asked the Tribunal to accept their conclusion that had the claimant been given appropriate guidance and the opportunity for further reflection or retraining, he was capable of carrying out his role safely and effectively given his testimony which shows a committed carer who exercised poor judgment on one occasion during an extremely difficult period. 155. As discussed during the hearing, the conclusions reached by the SSSC cannot be relied on when it comes to considering whether the respondent, with the information it had at the time of dismissal, had acted within the range of reasonable responses. 156. I would however observe in any event that, while the claimant suggested that this meant that the SSSC did not consider that he had breached their code of practice, a decision

8001599/2025 Page 27 that no action would be taken does not necessarily [NAME] such a conclusion. In any event, as discussed, the tests which this Tribunal requires to apply, in particular the range of reasonable responses test, is very different from the tests and standards applied by the SSSC. The range of reasonable responses test is designed precisely to acknowledge that what might be reasonable in one context or sector, may not be reasonable in another. 157. In this case, the claimant worked in a highly regulated sector and was bound by the [NAME]’s code of practice and the policies which the respondent had implemented to [NAME] and reinforce approved conduct and behaviour. The claimant had received extensive training on the policies, and had recently received refresher training. 158. While what happened in this case may be described as a lapse of judgment, it is apparent that the claimant did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of his actions, or indeed suggest any remorse, until he found himself in the disciplinary hearing with the possibility of losing his job. 159. In this case, the respondent had considered alternatives to dismissal. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] considered that the allegations were serious, particularly where the claimant did not view what had happened as a conflict of interest or a breach of professional boundaries, and where a risk assessment would have pointed otherwise; and further the failure to understand the severity of his actions; and where the claimant had an unprofessional relationship with [NAME] and his brother. Further, in evidence to this Tribunal [NAME] [NAME] clearly expressed his concerns about the failure to the claimant to recognise the seriousness of his actions. He took account of his length of service (believing that meant he ought to have known better) and his previous unblemished record. 160. I accept therefore that the sanction of dismissal in these circumstances fell within the range of reasonable responses. Conclusion 161. The claimant’s representatives asked the Tribunal to find that the claimant was a professional and considered carer in a 24/7 service in the [NAME] which I have no reason to doubt. I fully understand why the claimant believes he has been harshly treated for what he says was “an act of kindness” in difficult circumstances at work, and why he does not think it was sufficiently serious to justify his dismissal. 162. However, as he will now be fully aware, there is a range of reasonable responses open to an employer and even if this Tribunal considers that dismissal was too harsh in the particular circumstances, the particular context in which the respondent operates means that what might be reasonable in one context is not in another. I could not therefore say that dismissal in the particular circumstances of this case was unfair because dismissal

8001599/2025 Page 28 for gross misconduct was within range of reasonable responses open to the respondent. The claim must therefore be dismissed. 163. I am grateful to [NAME] [NAME] for his professionalism in conducting this hearing and to the claimant’s representations, all of whom made a significant contribution to the smooth running of the hearing. The claimant should be aware that he was well represented at this hearing, despite the challenges of changing representatives. Date sent to parties _____ 24 April 2026____