Key worker unfairly dismissed after flawed misconduct process with biased investigator
A care worker with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after a misconduct investigation and disciplinary hearing were both conducted by the same biased manager. The tribunal awarded £11,538.75 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #dyslexia
- #conduct-dismissal
- #flawed-investigation
- #acas-uplift
- #biased-employer
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a key worker from 2 February 2016.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for alleged misconduct including driving clients in his personal vehicle and exchanging phone numbers with a client.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were conducted by the same person, Mrs Turker, who was found to be biased.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was disabled due to dyslexia.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to a flawed process and lack of reasonable investigation.
- The claimant's disability discrimination claim failed as the disadvantage was not related to his dyslexia.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a key worker.
-
Email about client transport
Mrs Turker emailed staff instructing them not to carry clients in private vehicles.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended following a client complaint.
-
Investigation meeting
Mrs Turker conducted an investigation meeting; claimant denied wrongdoing.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for alleged breach of company rules and professional boundaries.
-
First disciplinary hearing
Hearing chaired by Mrs Turker; claimant became argumentative and meeting ended.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance about the disciplinary process.
-
Grievance report
Mr Paul Baker provided a grievance report.
-
Grievance appeal hearing
Claimant attended but became ill; hearing proceeded without him.
-
Second disciplinary hearing
Claimant did not attend; Mr Hickman chaired and added two new charges.
-
Hickman report
Mr Hickman recommended summary dismissal.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Turker adopted Hickman's report and dismissed claimant summarily.
-
Appeal report
Ms Vasoodaven recommended appeal not upheld.
-
Appeal outcome
Mrs Turker adopted the appeal report and upheld dismissal.
-
Liability hearing
Four-day hearing on liability.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal but no disability discrimination.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded £11,538.75 compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for alleged misconduct, and whether it failed to make reasonable adjustments for his dyslexia (a conceded disability).
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer's process was flawed: the same manager investigated and chaired the disciplinary hearing, showing bias. The employer also failed to properly investigate the allegations. However, the claimant's disability discrimination claim failed because the disadvantage he suffered was not related to his dyslexia.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £700.00
- Compensatory award: £10,838.75
- Total: £11,538.75
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure that the person investigating misconduct is different from the person who decides the outcome to avoid bias.
- A reasonable investigation means speaking to relevant witnesses and considering the employee's explanation before deciding to dismiss.
- Even if an employee has a disability, a discrimination claim will only succeed if the disadvantage is linked to that disability.
- Employers should follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures to reduce the risk of unfair dismissal claims.
A flawed process from the start
This case shows how a misconduct dismissal can unravel when the employer fails to separate the roles of investigator and decision-maker. The claimant, a key worker with two years' service, was dismissed for allegedly driving clients in his personal vehicle and exchanging phone numbers with a client. But the same manager, Mrs Turker, both investigated the allegations and chaired the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found this created bias and made the process unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
A fair process would have involved a different manager conducting the investigation, speaking to the client and any other witnesses, and giving the claimant a proper chance to respond. Instead, the investigation was superficial and the disciplinary hearing was cut short when the claimant became argumentative. The employer also added new charges at a later hearing without giving the claimant time to prepare. These failures meant the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Why the result matters
The case is a reminder that even in small organisations, basic procedural fairness is essential. The ACAS Code of Practice sets out clear steps: establish the facts, inform the employee of the allegations, allow them to respond, and ensure the decision-maker is impartial. Here, the employer did none of these properly. The compensation of over £11,500 reflects the financial impact on the claimant, but also serves as a warning to other employers that cutting corners on process can be costly.
Similar cases
Dyslexic programme manager loses constructive dismissal claim over performance plan
A programme manager with dyslexia who resigned after an informal performance improvement plan and a partially upheld grievance has lost her constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claims.
Funeral director with 31 years' service fails to establish disability status
An employment tribunal has ruled that a funeral director with 31 years' service was not a disabled person under the Equality Act, dismissing his disability discrimination claims.
Probation extensions and safeguarding referral: disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claim rejected
A tribunal dismissed claims of disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal brought by a learning mentor with dyslexia and anxiety/depression, finding the employer acted reasonably throughout.
Croupier wins constructive dismissal after months of grievance delay
A croupier with six years' service resigned after his employer failed to deal with his grievance for over a month and left him without a line manager for weeks. The tribunal awarded £16,345.60.