Personal assistant awarded £35,000 after dismissal linked to safeguarding report

A personal assistant has been awarded more than £35,000 after an employment tribunal concluded that he lost his job because he raised concerns with social services about the care being provided to his employer.

The worker provided physical and social support to a vulnerable individual who employed personal assistants using council-funded direct payments. During his employment, the personal assistant became concerned about the conduct of two other carers. His concerns included allegations about the standard of care being provided, attendance and decisions relating to his employer’s diet.

After initially discussing the issues with a member of his employer’s family, he was encouraged to raise them with social services. Several months later, however, he was dismissed without notice.

Among the issues he reported were allegations that the carers were exerting excessive control over his employer and taking him to eat fast food despite efforts to improve his diet and lose weight. The family member with whom he discussed the situation was personally acquainted with the two carers but nevertheless encouraged him to contact social services about the concerns.

The personal assistant subsequently spoke to a social worker. He reported that his employer was unhappy with aspects of the care he was receiving and raised concerns about punctuality, whether his care needs were being properly met and the food choices being made during outings. These concerns were particularly significant because public money was being used to fund the care arrangements.

In January 2023, several months after the referral to social services, the employee was asked to attend his employer’s home despite being on leave. The two personal assistants whose conduct he had previously reported were also present.

The employee was taken into another room by his employer’s family member and dismissed immediately. The tribunal heard that he was not given a reason for the decision at the meeting. After seeking an explanation, he later received a message setting out several allegations about his work.

These included claims concerning personal care, checks on his employer’s health, an outing that had allegedly been recorded but had not taken place, and his acceptance of a football shirt from the person he supported.

The employee disputed the care-related allegations. He maintained that he had been on leave during relevant periods, although he accepted that he had received the football shirt.

The tribunal concluded that the concerns raised both with the family member and with social services qualified for whistleblowing protection. They related to whether appropriate care was being provided and whether there was a potential risk to the vulnerable individual’s health and safety.

The tribunal also accepted that the employee believed raising those concerns served a wider public interest. The fact that the care was being funded from public money was relevant to that assessment. The safeguarding responsibilities of social services were another factor supporting the protected status of the referral.

Importantly, the employee had not acted against the family’s wishes when initially contacting social services. The family member involved in managing his employer’s affairs had authorised him to make the report.

The circumstances surrounding the later dismissal played an important part in the tribunal’s decision. In particular, the two carers who had been the subject of the employee’s concerns were present at the property when his employment was terminated.

The tribunal considered that their presence indicated they may have influenced the decision to dismiss him. Both had an obvious reason to be unhappy that concerns about their work had been reported to social services.

Although allegations about the employee’s own conduct were subsequently put forward, the tribunal was not persuaded that these were the genuine reason for ending his employment. Instead, it concluded that the decisive factor was his disclosure to social services. Because the dismissal resulted from a protected whistleblowing disclosure, it amounted to automatically unfair dismissal.

The tribunal also found there had been no proper disciplinary procedure before the employee lost his job. He was dismissed summarily, without the allegations being investigated through an appropriate process or a proper opportunity being provided for him to respond before the decision was made.

The employer did not attend the tribunal hearing or make representations in response to the claim. The tribunal concluded that the safeguarding disclosure to social services was the true reason for the dismissal and that the subsequent allegations about the worker’s own conduct did not explain why his employment had been terminated.

His dismissal was therefore found to be automatically unfair. The tribunal awarded a total of £35,228, comprising £571 as a basic award, £28,182 in compensation for lost earnings and an additional £7,046 because of the failure to follow an appropriate dismissal procedure.

The case demonstrates the particular protection available to workers who raise genuine safeguarding concerns. Where a disclosure qualifies for whistleblowing protection, dismissing an employee because they made that disclosure can result in a finding of automatic unfair dismissal, irrespective of their length of service. Should you wish to discuss this or any other HR-related matter, contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121.