A carer who was sacked after reporting her boss for stuffing a sock in a care home resident’s mouth to ‘stop him from shouting’ has lost her case for unfair dismissal.
Jodie Pelling also reported the female manager for using a lighter to frighten another person being cared for at the home in Eastbourne, an employment tribunal was told.
Following these incidents, the ‘gobsmacked’ carer told the home’s owners she could no longer work under the woman.
Ms Pelling was so upset and ‘appalled’ at the manager that she didn’t attend work for one shift, the tribunal heard.
At a meeting with the owners, she was called ‘brave’ for reporting what she had witnessed.
However, the carer was sacked after the meeting due to her missing work which was labelled ‘unacceptable’.
Complete Care Group’s headquarters (pictured) in Eastbourne, East Sussex which employed Ms Pelling for four months
She took bosses to the tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal, but a judge ruled the ‘principle reason’ for her sacking had been her absence from work, and not her disclosures relating to the manager’s conduct.
The hearing in south London was told Ms Pelling started working at The Complete Care Group Limited as a community development worker in August 2021 before her dismissal just four months later in November.
The care home was run by Paul and Joanna McWall and was ‘very short staffed’ during October and November 2021.
The hearing was told Ms Pelling didn’t attend work on November 18 as she was ‘very upset’ with her manager – identified only as ZB.
The tribunal heard this was the only shift she had ever missed.
Two days later, Mrs WcWall messaged Ms Pelling, asking if she wanted to talk or whether she could ‘assume you have left’.
However, Ms Pelling responded saying she would like a to speak with Mrs McWall and told her she was ‘very sorry’ for letting down the care home with ‘no warning’.
Later that week, Ms Pelling texted Mrs McWall again, saying she was ‘absolutely appalled and gobsmacked’ at the ‘behaviour and blatant rudeness’ from staff at the care home.
Their meeting was brought forward, where Ms Pelling apologised again for not attending work without telling anyone, but said she had been upset with her boss.
Mrs McWall said her behaviour had been ‘unacceptable’.
Explaining why she hadn’t attended work, Ms Pelling said: ‘There is a reason why I can’t work with ZB and what I’ve seen her do before – I feel she has behaved unprofessionally.
She said ZB used a lighter to move one of the residents along by ‘frightening him’ and ‘pushed a sock into a resident’s mouth to stop him from shouting’.
Mrs McWall called Ms Pelling ‘brave’ for reporting this but dismissed her the next day due to her ‘missing a shift’.
She told her she was ‘very sorry’, but said her ‘hands were tied’ because that was their policy for anyone who missed a shift.
The tribunal accepted that Ms Pelling had been right to blow the whistle on her superior.
‘The Tribunal considers that [she] held a reasonable belief that the disclosures she made were true and that, in respect of each, there was some form of wrongdoing by ZB.
‘The Tribunal has considered that the [care home company] is a residential care establishment and is therefore, in the public interest, subject to high scrutiny and regulatory requirements over the treatment of its residents.
‘In the case of the sock and lighter disclosures, ZB was the alleged wrong doer. She led a relatively prominent role within the [care home company] and could therefore have a significant impact on the lives of those in residential care.
‘It would be reasonable to believe that she could continue to have such an effect.’
However, as Ms Pelling’s meeting with the owners to discuss her absence had already been arranged, the tribunal found that her sacking was not connected with her whistleblowing.
Employment Judge Helen Rice-Birchall said: ‘The tribunal concludes that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was her absence and that the disclosures were not a material factor in the decision to dismiss.
‘The fact that the dismissal was in time proximate to the protected disclosures being made is not in itself sufficient to conclude that the disclosures led to the dismissal.’
Dismissing her claim of unfair dismissal due to making a protected disclosure, she added: ‘The Tribunal does not consider that the reason for dismissal was the fact that she made the protected disclosures.
‘It further does not conclude that it was the principal reason for dismissal.’