Care worker unfairly dismissed by employer-mother after incident with son
A care worker with four years' service was unfairly dismissed after an incident with his client. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded £2,975 after deductions.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #direct-payments
- #care-worker
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant provided care to R1, the son of R2, from March 2015 until August 2019.
- R2 was found to be the claimant's employer, not R1 or the local authority.
- The claimant was dismissed after an alleged incident in July 2019.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
- The claimant's compensatory award was reduced by 100% for contributory conduct.
- A 25% uplift was applied for failure to follow the ACAS code.
Timeline
-
R2 inquires about direct payments
R2 visited Haringey Council to ask about direct payments for her son R1's care.
-
Direct Payment Agreement signed
R1, R2, and Haringey Council signed the Direct Payment Agreement. The claimant was present but not a signatory.
-
Claimant starts work
The claimant began providing care to R1, initially 30 hours per week at £12.50 per hour.
-
Hours increased to 45 per week
R2 agreed to increase the claimant's hours to 45 per week, Monday to Friday 9am-6pm.
-
Alleged incident
An alleged incident occurred where R1 may have been injured while in the claimant's care. Newham Council investigated and took no further action.
-
Trigger incident
Another incident occurred leading to the claimant's dismissal.
-
Dismissal letter
R2 wrote to the claimant terminating his employment, stating she no longer felt R1 was safe in his care.
-
Effective date of termination
The tribunal found the effective date of termination was 28 August 2019.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing on employment status
Employment Judge Quill held a hearing to determine who was the claimant's employer.
-
Reserved judgment on status
Employment Judge Quill issued a reserved judgment finding R2 was the employer.
-
Final hearing judgment
Employment Judge R Lewis found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded £2,975.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the care worker was an employee of the client's mother (R2) or the local authority, and if so, whether his dismissal following an incident was fair.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the care worker was an employee of R2 (the client's mother) and was unfairly dismissed. The dismissal was procedurally unfair because R2 did not carry out a proper investigation or follow a fair process. However, the tribunal found that the care worker's own conduct contributed 100% to the dismissal, so the compensatory award was reduced to nil. The basic award was also nil due to length of service. A 25% uplift was applied for failure to follow the ACAS code, resulting in a total award of £2,975.
- Basic award: £0
- Compensatory award: £0 (100% reduction for contributory conduct)
- Polkey reduction: 100%
- ACAS uplift (25%): £2,975
- Total: £2,975
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair disciplinary process, including proper investigation and giving the employee a chance to respond, even in a direct-payment care arrangement.
- A 100% contributory conduct finding is rare but possible if the employee's actions are the sole reason for the dismissal.
- Failure to follow the ACAS code of practice can result in an uplift of up to 25% on compensation.
- Employment status in direct-payment cases can be complex; the person controlling the care (often the family member) is likely to be the employer.
A care worker's dismissal highlights procedural pitfalls for direct-payment employers
This case shows what can happen when a family member acting as an employer under a direct-payment arrangement handles a disciplinary matter without proper process. The care worker had been providing care to R1, a man with care needs, for over four years when an incident occurred in July 2019. His employer, R2 (R1's mother), decided to dismiss him after a second incident, stating she no longer felt her son was safe in his care.
What went wrong
The tribunal found that R2 did not carry out a reasonable investigation before dismissing the care worker. She did not give him a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations, and she did not follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary procedures. The dismissal was therefore procedurally unfair. However, the tribunal also found that the care worker's own conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal, meaning he would have been dismissed anyway even with a fair process. This led to a 100% reduction in the compensatory award.
What this means for similar claims
For employees in direct-payment arrangements, this case is a reminder that employment status can be disputed. The tribunal had to decide whether the care worker was employed by R1, R2, or the local authority. It ultimately found R2 was the employer because she controlled the care arrangements and paid the worker from the direct-payment budget. For employers, the case underscores the importance of following a fair process, even in a domestic care setting. Failure to do so can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal and an ACAS uplift on compensation.
The award of £2,975 reflects the 25% uplift for not following the ACAS code, applied to the basic award of £0 and compensatory award of £0 after deductions. While the care worker won his case, the 100% contributory conduct finding meant he received no compensation for loss of earnings.
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.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
Care worker dismissed for mistreating dementia resident: unfair process but no compensation
A care home worker was unfairly dismissed after procedural flaws, but the tribunal found her guilty of the alleged misconduct and reduced compensation to zero.
Dismissed for being 'too expensive' after TUPE transfer: unfair dismissal win
A director with 16 years' service was dismissed days after being told he was 'too expensive' and 'no longer needed'. The tribunal found the real reason was not misconduct but cost-cutting, and awarded £61,298.