Care worker dismissed for arranging unauthorised help during lockdown: unfair but heavily reduced compensation
A care worker who arranged for a friend to help her look after a vulnerable client during lockdown was unfairly dismissed, but the tribunal reduced her compensation by 70% for the chance she would have been fairly dismissed anyway and by 60% for her own misconduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unauthorised-individual
- #subcontracting-care
- #failure-to-disclose
- #pandemic-context
- #credibility-issues
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a carer for a vulnerable client from October 2017.
- During lockdown, the claimant arranged for a friend, G, to move into the client's home and assist with care duties without informing the respondent.
- The claimant also paid a housekeeper, B, for care work and concealed both individuals' presence from the respondent.
- The claimant made false entries in care notebooks to give the impression that a relief carer attended when she did not.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after an investigation that failed to interview the client.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to procedural failings but reduced compensation for contributory fault and the chance of a fair dismissal.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts working with HF
The claimant began continuous work with service user HF.
-
Lockdown begins; G moves in
At the start of the pandemic, the claimant agreed with G that he would move into HF's property to help with care, without informing the respondent.
-
WhatsApp message about Ildago
The claimant messaged Ms Alexander stating that Ildago would not come but would still submit hours to be paid, indicating the arrangement to pay Ildago for shifts not worked.
-
G calls HF's family
G called J and N, HF's cousins, alleging that the claimant was not caring for HF and that he and B were doing the work.
-
Police attend HF's house
Police visited HF's home after a report; G and B were found upstairs. Ms Alexander later attended and spoke with N, J, G, and B.
-
Claimant suspended
Ms Alexander told the claimant to leave HF's house pending an investigation; the claimant was not given details of the allegations.
-
Suspension on full basic pay confirmed
Ms Alexander wrote to the claimant confirming suspension on full basic pay and that an investigation into gross misconduct would take place.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Ms Irwin conducted a disciplinary hearing; the claimant denied the allegations and requested that HF be interviewed.
-
Dismissal for gross misconduct
Ms Irwin upheld most allegations and recommended dismissal; Ms Alexander summarily dismissed the claimant.
-
Appeal rejected
Mr Holt rejected the claimant's appeal against dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses, given the procedural failings in the investigation, and whether the claimant's conduct justified reductions in compensation.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation did not interview the client, who was a key witness. However, the claimant had arranged for an unauthorised individual to provide care, made false entries in care records, and concealed this from the employer. The tribunal applied a 70% Polkey reduction for the chance of a fair dismissal and a 60% reduction for contributory fault.
- Basic award: £1,143.25 (after 75% reduction for contributory conduct)
- Compensatory award: to be determined at a remedy hearing, subject to 70% Polkey and 60% contributory reductions
- Other claims (notice pay, unlawful deduction of wages, holiday pay) were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure investigations are thorough, including interviewing key witnesses like the client, before dismissing for gross misconduct.
- Employees who take unilateral action that breaches trust and care standards risk significant reductions in compensation even if the dismissal is found unfair.
- Making false entries in records is a serious matter that tribunals will treat as contributory fault, reducing any award.
- The pandemic context does not excuse failing to inform an employer about significant changes in care arrangements.
This case highlights the tension between an employee's initiative during a crisis and an employer's need for transparency and control over care provision. The claimant, a care worker with four years' service, arranged for a friend to move in with a vulnerable client during lockdown and paid a housekeeper for care work, all without informing her employer. She also made false entries in care notebooks to conceal the arrangement.
What went wrong procedurally
The employer dismissed her for gross misconduct after an investigation that failed to interview the client, who was the most important witness. The tribunal found this procedural failing made the dismissal unfair, as a reasonable employer would have sought the client's account. However, the tribunal also found that the claimant's conduct was serious and that a fair process would likely have led to dismissal anyway.
The impact on compensation
The tribunal applied a 70% reduction to reflect the chance that a fair process would still have resulted in dismissal, and a further 60% reduction for the claimant's contributory fault. This means any compensatory award will be significantly reduced. The basic award was also cut by 75% for contributory conduct. The case serves as a reminder that even when a dismissal is unfair, employees who have acted dishonestly or in breach of trust can expect their compensation to be heavily reduced.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.