Penicela v Sanctuary Care [2022] EAT 181

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined that the original tribunal failed to adequately address the primary concerns of the claimant regarding her dismissal. The EAT held that the matter should be returned to the tribunal for further examination and resolution.

Principles Derived:

  1. If a claimant makes a distinct case that their dismissal was influenced by an intermediary's potentially biased report, the tribunal must specifically address that claim.

  2. When reviewing dismissals, not only the direct beliefs of the dismissing officer should be considered but also any potential influences that may have affected intermediary reports leading to the decision.

  3. The process leading to a dismissal should be dissected, especially when a claimant alleges that protected disclosures have adversely affected their employment.

Facts & Application of the law

The claimant, after raising concerns about understaffing at care homes managed by the respondent and the potential risk to residents, was subsequently dismissed during a probationary review. The reason provided was capability or performance. The dismissal was based on a probation report written by her initial line manager, who later stepped down. This report was used by another manager to determine the claimant's dismissal. The tribunal confirmed that the claimant did make a protected disclosure but dismissed her claim, stating that this disclosure had no bearing on her dismissal.

The EAT found that the tribunal did not specifically consider if the line manager's report, which played a role in the dismissal, was tainted by the claimant's protected disclosure. Given this oversight and the central role it played in the claimant's case, the EAT remitted the matter back to the tribunal for a more thorough examination.

For individuals looking to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal after an Employment Tribunal decision, this case highlights the importance of ensuring that all facets of their claims, especially those involving protected disclosures and intermediary reports, are comprehensively addressed.

Previous
Previous

Polyclear v Wezowicz [2022] ICR 175

Next
Next

Holmes v Tellemachus [2022] EAT 71