Suspended care worker wins constructive dismissal case

A tribunal has ruled that a care home team leader was constructively unfairly dismissed after she was suspended for organising an Easter activity for residents, including purchasing chocolate eggs and arranging entertainment.

The tribunal found that the employer acted too quickly in suspending the employee and that the decision lacked sufficient justification. The judge described the suspension as a “knee-jerk reaction” that undermined the relationship of trust and confidence between the employee and the organisation.

The employee had worked for the care provider for many years and had been promoted to a team leader role at a supported living service for adults with severe learning disabilities in 2020.

In early 2024, the organisation carried out an operational review of several services. During this process, managers raised concerns about certain purchases and arrangements at the home where the claimant worked. These included the provision of Easter eggs for residents, the installation of Wi-Fi, and the purchase of a printer.

Management initially believed the items had been obtained in breach of internal policies relating to donations and data protection. Shortly afterwards, the employee was informed that her duties would change so that she would spend part of the week performing care shifts rather than focusing solely on managerial responsibilities, despite her job description not including frontline care work.

A few days later she was suspended from her role while the organisation investigated potential policy breaches.

During the tribunal hearing, it emerged that the employee had attempted to follow the charity’s procedures when obtaining the Easter eggs for a planned egg hunt for residents. The tribunal also heard that the printer had been purchased using money from a residents’ fund after it had been offered informally through a personal contact.

Although the judge said it may not have been the best decision to use residents’ funds in this way and that clearer records should have been kept, the purchase did not amount to a breach of company policy.

Managers had also raised concerns about an Easter event where an entertainer dressed as a well-known fictional character had been invited to perform. The organisation believed checks relating to insurance and safeguarding certification had not been carried out.

However, the tribunal heard that the entertainer had previously performed at the home during a Christmas celebration and had provided the necessary documentation at that time. While the employee had not rechecked those details before the Easter event, the judge concluded that the issue could easily have been clarified.

A senior manager told the tribunal that the decision to suspend the employee was intended to prevent potential policy breaches and protect residents while the concerns were investigated. The organisation also reported a possible financial irregularity to the police, although officers later decided to take no further action.

The employee resigned shortly after her suspension, arguing that the organisation’s actions had effectively forced her out of her job.

The tribunal agreed, concluding that the suspension had been imposed without adequate consideration of whether it was necessary. According to the judge, the decision appeared to be based on an assumption that suspension should automatically follow allegations requiring investigation rather than a careful assessment of the circumstances.

The tribunal also criticised the earlier decision to change the employee’s role without consultation. The judge found that imposing new duties without discussion further damaged the employment relationship and lacked a proper justification.

The judgment stated that while the employer might have been able to propose changes through consultation or a formal reorganisation process, it had failed to involve the employee before implementing the changes. Taken together, the suspension and sudden alteration to her duties led the tribunal to conclude that the employee could reasonably have felt she was being pushed out of the organisation.

Suspension can sometimes be appropriate during investigations, particularly where safety concerns or risks to evidence exist. However, employers must ensure there is a clear and proportionate reason for doing so and should always consider alternative approaches. Should you require support to manage an investigation process contact 121 HR Solutions at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk.

Suspended care worker wins constructive dismissal case

121 HR Solutions Ltd