Night carer dismissed for moving deceased resident: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A night senior carer with over 40 years' experience was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after moving an unresponsive resident before calling 999, the tribunal has ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #care-home
- #unexpected-death
- #failure-to-follow-procedure
- #summary-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was a Night Senior Carer at a care home.
- On 12 August 2022, a resident was found unresponsive on the floor.
- The claimant moved the resident onto a bed before calling 999.
- The respondent's policies required not moving the resident and calling 999 first.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
- The claimant's appeal was unsuccessful.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as part-time Night Senior Carer at Denmead Grange Care Home.
-
Incident occurred
Claimant responded to an emergency bell and found an unresponsive resident on the floor. She moved the resident onto a bed before calling 999.
-
Investigation meeting
Ms Johnston met with the claimant to discuss the incident.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into failure to follow procedures.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant received letter inviting her to a disciplinary hearing on 8 September.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing conducted by Mrs Hayman. Claimant attended alone.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal submitted
Claimant submitted an appeal against dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Corrigan via Zoom. Claimant attended alone.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal dismissed; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's investigation and decision to dismiss for gross misconduct were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, including whether the employee's actions amounted to a fundamental breach of duty.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal.
The key reason was that the employer had carried out a reasonable investigation and genuinely believed the carer had breached a critical safety procedure by moving the resident before calling 999. The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness of the breach.
No compensation was awarded as the dismissal was found to be fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- Care home staff must follow emergency procedures strictly, even when acting out of compassion or a desire to preserve dignity.
- Employers can fairly dismiss for a single breach of a critical safety rule if the breach is serious enough to amount to gross misconduct.
- Length of service and good disciplinary record do not automatically protect an employee if the misconduct is sufficiently serious.
A difficult call, a costly outcome
This case highlights the tension between following procedure and using professional judgment in a crisis. The night senior carer, with over 40 years in health and social care, found an unresponsive resident on the floor. Her instinct was to move him to preserve his dignity and clear the hallway. But the care home's policy required staff not to move the resident and to call 999 first. That deviation cost her her job.
What the employer did right
Barchester Healthcare Ltd carried out a prompt investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered the carer's explanation. The dismissing officer concluded that moving the resident was a serious breach of a safety rule designed to protect residents and avoid legal liability. The tribunal accepted that the employer's belief was genuine and based on reasonable grounds. The appeal process also upheld the decision.
What the carer could have done differently
The carer argued that she acted in the resident's best interests. However, the tribunal noted that the policy existed for good reason: moving an unresponsive person can cause further harm or complicate a post-mortem. Calling 999 first would have allowed paramedics to assess the resident in situ. The carer's long experience did not override the need to follow the procedure.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even compassionate actions can be misconduct if they breach clear safety rules. Employers in care settings are entitled to expect strict compliance with procedures designed to protect vulnerable residents. Employees who believe they know better than the policy take a significant risk. The tribunal's decision confirms that a single, serious breach can justify summary dismissal, regardless of length of service or past good conduct.
Similar cases
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Technical manager dismissed for bypassing safety device: conduct dismissal upheld
A Technical Services Manager was fairly dismissed after bypassing an overheat stat on an air handling unit and swearing at a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Long-serving postman dismissed for drink-driving: Royal Mail's decision upheld
A postman with 17 years' service was fairly dismissed after a member of the public reported him drinking alcohol from a can and driving away. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation and decision were reasonable.
30-year employee dismissed for gross misconduct without any disciplinary procedure: unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that Dunwood Specialties Limited unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee after failing to follow any disciplinary process, but reduced compensation by 80% because the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway.