Complex Dependency Key Worker dismissed for accessing relative's confidential records
A 12-year employee of Wigan Borough Council was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after repeatedly accessing a service user's confidential records without authorisation. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the council's investigation and procedure were reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unauthorised-data-access
- #conflict-of-interest
- #gross-misconduct
- #public-sector-employer
- #acas-code-followed
Key facts
- The claimant accessed a service user's confidential records on Mosaic on 12 occasions without authorisation.
- The service user was a relative of the claimant's husband.
- The claimant was aware of the Council's policies on data protection and conflicts of interest.
- The claimant failed to follow a management instruction to avoid involvement in the service user's case.
- The claimant did not record time spent on personal matters related to the service user.
- At the appeal, the claimant stated she would repeat the actions if necessary.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant commenced employment with Wigan Borough Council.
-
Management instruction
Gareth Brown advised the claimant that involvement in GC's case would be a conflict of interest.
-
Case closure
Social worker Sammie Corcoran closed GC's case as he refused support.
-
Contact with social worker
Claimant contacted Mike Watson, identified as GC's social worker via Mosaic, to arrange a meeting.
-
Concerns raised
Mike Watson reported the claimant's Mosaic access to his line manager.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended pending investigation.
-
Investigation interview 1
Terri Byrne interviewed Mike Watson.
-
Investigation interview 2
Terri Byrne interviewed Daniel Blackledge.
-
Claimant interviewed
Claimant interviewed by Terri Byrne with union representative.
-
Second claimant interview
Claimant interviewed again; conceded actions were contrary to policy.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing on 9 November 2020.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Early conciliation start
Early conciliation period began.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented unfair dismissal claim to tribunal.
-
Tribunal hearing start
Substantive hearing held over three days.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found dismissal fair; claim dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Wigan Borough Council acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct, specifically unauthorised access to confidential records and failure to follow management instructions, and whether the investigation and disciplinary process were fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, ruling that Wigan Borough Council had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on reasonable grounds and a thorough investigation. The disciplinary process was fair, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure they have clear policies on data access and conflicts of interest, and that employees are aware of them.
- A thorough investigation, including multiple interviews and consideration of evidence, is crucial to supporting a fair dismissal decision.
- Employees should avoid any involvement in cases where they have a personal connection, even if they believe their intentions are good.
- Admitting misconduct during the investigation does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer follows a fair process.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates that even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct if they breach clear policies on data protection and conflicts of interest. The claimant, a Complex Dependency Key Worker with 12 years' service, accessed a service user's confidential records on 12 occasions without authorisation. The service user was a relative of the claimant's husband, and she had been specifically instructed to avoid involvement in the case. Despite this, she continued to access records and contact the allocated social worker.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided dismissal by following the management instruction to stay away from the case. She admitted at appeal that she would repeat the actions if necessary, which showed a lack of insight. The council's investigation was thorough, including interviews with multiple witnesses and the claimant herself. The disciplinary hearing considered all evidence, and the appeal process was also fair. The tribunal noted that the council followed the ACAS Code of Practice.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that employers can rely on gross misconduct dismissals when employees deliberately breach data protection policies and ignore management instructions. The tribunal emphasised that the council's belief in the misconduct was genuine and based on reasonable grounds. For employees, it highlights the importance of adhering to workplace policies, especially regarding confidential information and conflicts of interest. The decision also shows that a fair process, including a reasonable investigation and opportunity to respond, will protect employers from successful unfair dismissal claims.
Similar cases
Commercial manager dismissed for registering own company while employed by council
A 22-year council employee who set up a private company without telling his employer was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled.
Senior construction manager dismissed for undisclosed friendships and laptop misuse
A senior project manager was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to disclose personal relationships with contractors and allowing a friend to use his work laptop. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Long-serving wellbeing worker dismissed for continuing meals project after final warning
A wellbeing worker with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after he continued a free meals project with his son, despite a final written warning. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.