In the case of Mrs M Raphael v Trentside Manor Care Limited a care home manager has won more than £100,000 damages at an employment appeal tribunal after she was fired from Trentside Manor Care Home in Stoke after asking her boss, Pargan Dhadda, to reduce her hours to four days a week following a stroke.
She had worked at the care home since 2011, and in 2015 suffered a stroke which left her with reduced energy levels. She also suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a chronic heart condition that leaves her feeling exhausted.
In May 2018, she asked Mr Dhadda to work a four-day week, in order to avoid going off sick, which he “reluctantly” agreed to, the tribunal in Birmingham heard.
However, Ms Raphael was hit with several misconduct allegations connected to a “minor error” and was dismissed after a disciplinary hearing.
The disciplinary process was kept within Mr Dhadda’s family, with his nephew conducting the main hearing and his cousin being responsible for Ms Raphael’s failed appeal.
The tribunal said she had “inadequate opportunity” to consider the case against her and to defend herself. She gave evidence that she felt Pargan Dhadda was not listening to her.
The tribunal was told that Ms Raphael’s mental health “significantly deteriorated” after she was let go and was forced to work a temporary job at Boots to secure income.
“After her dismissal, [her] confidence was shattered,” it said. “She had dedicated over 20 years to the care sector and loved the work and the people she cared for.
The dismissal came as a “tremendous shock” to her, the tribunal was told.
The care home claimed that Ms Raphael would have had to leave the job as it was “physically demanding” and she was “struggling to cope”. They also said Ms Raphael had been guilty of “gross misconduct”.
But the judge found that Mr Dhadda had been looking for the first opportunity to fire Ms Raphael and the disciplinary process was merely “a pretext”.
“He immediately proceeded, as quickly as possible, to put in motion basic disciplinary steps, simply to attempt to satisfy compulsory procedural requirements,” said Liz Ord, the tribunal’s employment judge.
“He had no real interest in finding out whether the claimant had actually committed any misconduct.”
Ms Raphael was awarded £100,840 in damages.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
