Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: unfair dismissal for lack of disciplinary hearing
A night care assistant with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after being seen asleep on duty, because her employer did not hold a disciplinary hearing before sacking her. The tribunal awarded £962.79, reduced by 75% for her contributory conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #sleeping-on-duty
- #gross-misconduct
- #night-carer
- #photographic-evidence
- #no-disciplinary-hearing
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Night Care Assistant from 22 February 2013 until 31 August 2018.
- She was dismissed for gross misconduct after being seen asleep on duty on 29 August 2018.
- The respondent did not hold a disciplinary hearing before dismissing her.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to lack of fair process.
- The claimant was found to have contributed to her dismissal by falling asleep on duty, leading to a 75% reduction in compensation.
- The tribunal applied a Polkey reduction limiting compensation to two weeks' pay, as a fair process would have resulted in dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working as a Night Carer for Adara Healthcare Limited.
-
Performance issues raised
Poor performance issues were raised with the claimant.
-
Formal improvement notice
Respondent issued a formal improvement notice to the claimant.
-
First reported sleeping incident
Colleagues reported claimant asleep on duty twice in one shift.
-
Final sleeping incident
Claimant was seen asleep in a resident's room and later in the lounge; photographs were taken.
-
Discussion with manager
Manager Janet Smith spoke to claimant about the incident; claimant denied sleeping.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect for sleeping on duty.
-
Appeal request
Claimant wrote to request an appeal; no appeal process was offered.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal to the tribunal.
-
Final hearing
The case was heard at Cambridge Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for sleeping on duty, and if so, what compensation should be awarded considering her contributory fault and the likelihood that a fair procedure would still have led to dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim for unfair dismissal. The employer dismissed the night care assistant for gross misconduct (sleeping on duty) without holding any disciplinary hearing, which made the process procedurally unfair.
However, the tribunal found that the claimant had contributed to her dismissal by falling asleep on duty, and that a fair process would have resulted in dismissal after about two weeks. Compensation was therefore limited:
- Basic award: £742.50
- Compensatory award: £220.29
- Total before reductions: £962.79
- Both awards reduced by 75% for contributory conduct
- Polkey reduction limited loss to two weeks' pay
Final award: £962.79
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must hold a disciplinary hearing before dismissing for gross misconduct, even when there is strong evidence like photographs.
- Employees who admit to or are caught sleeping on duty may still have an unfair dismissal claim if the process is flawed.
- Compensation can be heavily reduced (here by 75%) if the employee's own conduct contributed to the dismissal.
- A Polkey reduction can limit compensation to the period a fair process would have taken, even if the dismissal was unfair.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the importance of following a fair disciplinary process, even when the employer believes the misconduct is clear-cut. The night care assistant was dismissed for sleeping on duty after photographs were taken, but the employer did not hold a disciplinary hearing or give her a chance to respond to the allegations before deciding to sack her. The tribunal found that this procedural failure made the dismissal unfair, regardless of the strength of the evidence.
What the employer could have done differently
Adara Healthcare Limited could have avoided this claim by holding a simple disciplinary hearing. The tribunal noted that a fair process would have involved informing the employee of the allegations, allowing her to present her side, and then making a decision. Even if the outcome would have been the same, the lack of hearing meant the dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses. The employer also failed to offer an appeal, which compounded the unfairness.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that procedural fairness is not optional. Even in cases of apparent gross misconduct, employees are entitled to a basic level of process. However, the significant 75% reduction for contributory conduct shows that employees who admit to or are caught in serious misconduct will see their compensation cut sharply. The Polkey reduction also limited the award to just two weeks' pay, reflecting the tribunal's view that a fair process would have led to dismissal anyway. For employees considering a claim, this case highlights that while unfair dismissal can be established, the financial award may be modest if the employee's own actions contributed to the dismissal.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed for sleeping on duty: employer's decision upheld
A security officer with 11 years' service was fairly dismissed after video evidence showed her apparently sleeping on duty. The tribunal upheld G4S's decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
HGV driver dismissed after heated route dispute: no disciplinary hearing meant unfair dismissal
An HGV driver who refused a route in anger and left work was unfairly dismissed when his employer treated it as resignation without a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but will apply significant reductions for his conduct.