Night Support Worker dismissed for pushing resident: dismissal unfair but compensation slashed
A care home worker who pushed a resident with autism was unfairly dismissed because the employer failed to hold a disciplinary hearing or consider an appeal. The tribunal awarded £2,436.73, reduced by 75% for his misconduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Webb pushed a resident with autism/learning difficulties during a night shift.
- The resident suffered a bruise on his upper back.
- Mr Webb reported the incident himself via an Incident Report Form.
- The employer dismissed Mr Webb without a disciplinary hearing or appeal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but that Mr Webb committed the misconduct.
Timeline
-
Incident with resident
Mr Webb pushed resident HH in the hallway after being followed and provoked. HH stumbled into a doorframe, sustaining a bruise.
-
Incident report filed
Mr Webb completed an Incident Report Form describing the push. Manager Michael Merrell-Dominguez discovered the report the next day.
-
Investigation meeting
Mr Webb attended an investigation meeting with Mr Merrell-Dominguez and a note-taker. He admitted pushing HH forcefully.
-
Suspension
Mr Webb was suspended pending further investigation.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Mr Webb was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 27 March 2020, later postponed to 1 April 2020.
-
Disciplinary hearing held in absence
Mr Webb refused to attend due to inadequate investigation. The hearing proceeded without him, and he was dismissed summarily.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Mr Bennett issued a dismissal letter confirming summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal attempt
Mr Webb emailed appeal manager Elizabeth Black but received no response. The appeal deadline passed.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found dismissal unfair but applied 75% Polkey deduction and 75% contributory conduct reduction, with 15% ACAS uplift.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded £2,436.73 total compensation, comprising basic award £245.91 and compensatory award £2,190.82.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair due to procedural failings, and if so, what compensation was appropriate considering the worker's own misconduct and the chance that a fair procedure would still have led to dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the employer failed to hold a proper disciplinary hearing and did not respond to the worker's appeal. However, the worker had pushed a resident, causing a bruise, which was serious misconduct.
Compensation was reduced significantly:
- 75% Polkey deduction (chance he would have been dismissed anyway)
- 75% reduction for contributory conduct
- 15% ACAS uplift for failing to follow the Code of Practice
Total award: £2,436.73
- Basic award: £245.91
- Compensatory award: £2,190.82
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must hold a proper disciplinary hearing before dismissing for gross misconduct, even if the employee refuses to attend.
- Ignoring an employee's appeal can make an otherwise fair dismissal procedurally unfair.
- Employees who admit to misconduct can still win an unfair dismissal claim if the process is flawed, but compensation will be heavily reduced.
- Tribunals will apply significant Polkey deductions where the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway under a fair procedure.
A Night Support Worker at a care home was dismissed after pushing a resident with autism and learning difficulties during a night shift. The worker reported the incident himself, but the employer held the disciplinary hearing in his absence and ignored his appeal. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but the worker's own conduct meant he received only a fraction of the compensation.
What went wrong
The employer's key mistake was failing to hold a proper disciplinary hearing. The worker refused to attend because he felt the investigation was inadequate, but the hearing went ahead without him. The employer also failed to respond to his appeal, which the tribunal said was a clear breach of the ACAS Code of Practice. A fair process would have given the worker a chance to explain his actions and potentially mitigate the outcome.
Why compensation was low
Despite the unfairness, the tribunal found that the worker had pushed the resident forcefully, causing a bruise. This was serious misconduct. The tribunal applied a 75% Polkey deduction, meaning there was a 75% chance he would have been dismissed anyway under a fair procedure. A further 75% reduction was made for his contributory conduct. After a 15% uplift for the ACAS breach, the total award was just £2,436.73.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that even when an employer gets the process wrong, the employee's own behaviour can drastically reduce compensation. Workers who admit to misconduct should still challenge procedural flaws, but they must be realistic about the likely award. Employers, meanwhile, should remember that a fair process is not optional—even when the employee's conduct is serious.
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.
Manager dismissed for password breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into password sharing and order deletion. The tribunal awarded £5,552 but reduced compensation because he contributed to his own dismissal.
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.
Care home worker dismissed for refusing to use official vaccine exemption form: dismissal fair
A senior care assistant with 18 years' service was fairly dismissed after refusing to complete the government's self-certification form for a medical exemption from Covid-19 vaccination. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and philosophical belief discrimination.