Regional manager dismissed for failing to follow safeguarding policy: dismissal fair
A regional manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed after admitting she had not been following the employer's safeguarding policy for external reporting in secure settings.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #safeguarding-policy
- #external-reporting
- #senior-manager
- #gross-negligence
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Regional Manager from 19 July 2011 to 5 October 2021.
- In May 2021, the claimant disclosed to her line manager that she had not been following the respondent's safeguarding policy for external reporting in secure settings.
- The respondent suspended the claimant and commissioned two investigations, the second of which found she had failed to follow policy.
- A disciplinary panel upheld allegations of gross misconduct and gross negligence, leading to dismissal.
- The claimant's appeal was rejected.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment with POhWER as a Regional Manager.
-
New CEO appointed
Helen Moulinos became CEO and initiated a review of safeguarding policies.
-
CEO email on safeguarding
Ms Moulinos sent guidance to SMT requiring confirmation of reading and understanding.
-
Safeguarding Action Plan
Action plan created to strengthen safeguarding policy and training.
-
First SMT Roundtable
Monthly roundtables began to discuss safeguarding improvements.
-
Eldertree Lodge CQC intervention
Claimant learned of CQC intervention at a secure setting in her area.
-
Meeting with Mrs Hawkes
Claimant commented that not all safeguarding could be reported externally.
-
Disclosure to Mrs Hawkes
Claimant admitted she had not been making external safeguarding reports for two contracts.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into her disclosure.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Panel heard evidence and upheld allegations of gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal panel rejected the claimant's appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct and gross negligence, specifically for failing to follow the safeguarding policy and not reporting concerns externally to local authorities.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. It found that the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses for a senior manager with safeguarding responsibilities.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Senior managers in regulated sectors like safeguarding can be fairly dismissed for policy breaches even if they self-report.
- Employers should ensure investigations and disciplinary processes are thorough and follow their own procedures.
- Length of service does not automatically protect an employee if the misconduct is serious enough.
- Admitting a breach of policy does not necessarily mitigate the seriousness of the conduct.
When self-reporting leads to dismissal
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for admitting to a policy breach, especially when the breach involves safeguarding vulnerable people. The regional manager had worked for POhWER for ten years, but her disclosure that she had not been following the external reporting policy in secure settings led to suspension, investigation, and ultimately dismissal for gross misconduct.
The tribunal noted that the employer had recently strengthened its safeguarding procedures following a new CEO's review. The claimant's failure to report safeguarding concerns externally to local authorities was considered a serious dereliction of duty for a senior manager. The employer's investigation and disciplinary process were found to be reasonable, and the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses.
What the employer did right
POhWER conducted two investigations, gave the claimant a fair disciplinary hearing with representation, and provided a right of appeal. The tribunal was satisfied that the employer genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct and that this belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. The employer also followed the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary procedures.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employees in roles with safeguarding or compliance responsibilities must adhere strictly to policies, even if they believe there are practical difficulties. Self-reporting a breach does not guarantee protection from dismissal. Employers, particularly in regulated sectors, are expected to take such breaches seriously, and tribunals will generally support reasonable decisions to dismiss for gross misconduct where the investigation is fair and the outcome is within the range of reasonable responses.
Similar cases
Janitor dismissed for unauthorised absences caught on CCTV: gross misconduct upheld
A janitor with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV and fob data showed he spent extended periods away from his post. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Emergency medical technician dismissed for using racist language: 15 years' service didn't save her job
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an EMT with 15 years' service who used the n-word about a black colleague on two occasions, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
24-year manager dismissed for falsifying delivery records: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
An operations manager with 24 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making unauthorised manual carded entries and giving incorrect explanations. The tribunal rejected both his unfair and wrongful dismissal claims.
12-year employee resigns over grievance handling: constructive dismissal and remedy
A housing association was found to have constructively dismissed a long-serving employee after mishandling his grievance. The tribunal awarded over £11,000 in compensation, including a basic award of £6,096 and a compensatory award of £1,073.