[2024] UKUT 286 (AAC)

In broad summary, the background is as follows (page references in square brackets, [], are references to the hearing bundle prepared by the DBS).

The Appellant is a 39-year-old woman. At the material time, she was working as a Senior Care Assistant, providing support for vulnerable adults at a private care provider (“the Employer”) which operated at least one residential care home. The Appellant states that she had over 17 years of experience in the care sector [5] [14].

The Appellant started work for the Employer in May 2020 [5], initially as a (bank) care assistant [51]. In around 2021, the Appellant became a Senior Care Assistant [5] and [60].

The Employer’s referral to DBS arose, primarily, out of concerns about the care provided (or not provided) to a service user (“X”) during the night of 18-19 September 2022.

X was a recently-admitted resident at one the Employer’s care homes. X was 78 years old at the time, with various long-term conditions [73]-[75]. Notably, X had a catheter and her Care Plan stipulated that she needed regular assistance for associated continence issues [84].

The Appellant was subject to the Employer’s disciplinary procedure, which encompassed an initial investigation meeting with the Appellant [121]-[124] and five of her colleagues [104-120]. A second investigation meeting was held with the Appellant to put allegations to her which had been made by some of her colleagues [125]-[127].

On 30 September 2022, the Employer invited the Appellant to attend a disciplinary hearing, which she did not attend [182]. On 4 October 2022, the Employer rescheduled the hearing [184], but again the Appellant did not attend [100].

The Employer concluded that (among other things) the Appellant had failed, during the night shift of 18-19 September 2022, to take necessary action after having been made aware that X had cut her catheter tube (“the Catheter Incident”). The Employer found the Appellant to have committed gross misconduct and dismissed her with immediate effect [98]-[99].

The Appellant had, previously in August 2021, been issued with a formal written warning in relation to breaching the Employer’s social media policy (by taking a photo with a TV celebrity visiting the home and posting it to social media) and its PPE (personal protective equipment) policy, having had her mask removed when the photo was taken [128].

On 24 October 2022, the Employer referred the Appellant to the DBS [41]-[48].