Neighbourhood caretaker dismissed for abusing disabled service user: conduct dismissal upheld
A 13-year neighbourhood caretaker was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after a disabled service user complained he was verbally abusive and made a kicking motion. The tribunal rejected claims that the real reason was trade union activities.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #trade-union-activities
- #unauthorised-absence
- #public-facing-role
- #racial-abuse-allegation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a neighbourhood caretaker from February 2007 until 25 February 2020.
- On 26 June 2019, a disabled service user complained that the claimant was verbally abusive, aggressive, and threatened to kick him.
- The respondent investigated and found that the claimant had been verbally abusive, physically threatening, and had directed a kick towards the service user.
- The claimant was also found to have been absent without authorisation on multiple occasions, including for trade union duties.
- The disciplinary panel concluded that each of three allegations amounted to gross misconduct and dismissed the claimant without notice.
- The tribunal found that the dismissal was for conduct, not trade union activities, and was both substantively and procedurally fair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a neighbourhood caretaker for London Borough of Croydon.
-
Incident in library
Claimant had an altercation with a disabled service user in Croydon central library. The service user complained that the claimant was aggressive, swore, and threatened to kick him.
-
Investigation instructed
Director of Housing Assessment and Solutions instructed HR to investigate the complaint.
-
Notice of investigatory interview
Claimant was sent a letter setting out allegations of verbal abuse, threatening physical harm, failure to seek approval for union duties, and bringing the council into disrepute.
-
First investigatory interview
Claimant attended an investigatory meeting with a trade union representative. He denied kicking the service user and said he only pushed his chair in.
-
Second investigatory interview
Claimant was questioned about his library computer usage and authorisation for absences. He said he could not discuss the printout and suggested someone may have used his library card.
-
Management statement of case
A detailed report concluded that on balance of probabilities the claimant was verbally abusive, aggressive, and made a kicking motion. It also found he failed to seek approval for union duties on many occasions.
-
Disciplinary hearing (first part)
Hearing before a panel including Mr Tate. The service user and library supervisor gave evidence. Claimant expanded on racial abuse allegations, mentioning 'monkeys' and reporting to police.
-
Disciplinary hearing (reconvened)
Further hearing where Ms Inam gave evidence, confirming a kicking motion. Claimant's line manager and Mr Eze also gave evidence about authorisation for absences.
-
Outcome letter
Panel concluded each of three allegations was gross misconduct and dismissed the claimant without notice.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed (both ordinarily and automatically due to trade union activities) and wrongfully dismissed. The key issues were whether the employer had a genuine belief in misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all complaints. The claimant was found to have been fairly dismissed for conduct, not for trade union activities.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent had a genuine belief, based on a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had been verbally abusive, physically threatening, and made a kicking motion towards a disabled service user.
- The claimant had also been absent without authorisation on multiple occasions, including for trade union duties.
- The disciplinary process was procedurally fair, with the claimant given opportunities to respond.
- The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for gross misconduct.
No compensation was awarded as the dismissal was fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for misconduct if they carry out a reasonable investigation and genuinely believe the employee committed the act.
- A public-facing role means behaviour towards service users is a relevant factor in disciplinary decisions.
- Employees who claim dismissal was due to trade union activities need to show that was the principal reason, not just a factor.
- Multiple instances of unauthorised absence, including for union duties, can be treated as misconduct if proper authorisation was not obtained.
This case shows how a public-facing employee can be fairly dismissed for misconduct even after 13 years of service, provided the employer follows a proper process. The neighbourhood caretaker was dismissed after a disabled service user complained that he was verbally abusive, aggressive, and made a kicking motion. The employer investigated thoroughly, held disciplinary hearings, and concluded that each of three allegations amounted to gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
London Borough of Croydon conducted a detailed investigation, including interviewing witnesses and the service user. The disciplinary panel considered the evidence and gave the claimant opportunities to respond. The tribunal found that the employer genuinely believed the misconduct occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and followed a fair procedure. The claimant's argument that he was dismissed for trade union activities was rejected because the evidence showed the principal reason was his conduct towards the service user and his unauthorised absences.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant denied the allegations and raised a counter-allegation of racial abuse, but the tribunal noted that the employer did investigate his complaint. However, the claimant failed to provide evidence to support his claim that the real reason for dismissal was his trade union activities. The tribunal found that the unauthorised absences for union duties were not properly authorised, and the employer was entitled to treat them as misconduct.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that employers have a wide discretion to dismiss for gross misconduct if they follow a fair process. Employees in public-facing roles must be aware that their behaviour towards service users is a legitimate concern. The decision also clarifies that simply being involved in trade union activities does not automatically make a dismissal unfair – the employee must show that those activities were the principal reason for the dismissal.
Similar cases
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Security officer dismissed for leaving post: unauthorised absences justified gross misconduct
A security officer with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV footage showed he left his post without authorisation on multiple occasions. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Stock technician dismissed for unauthorised absence: conduct dismissal upheld
A stock technician with six years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after an unauthorised absence. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and harassment.