Alison Newey wanted to run an Easter egg hunt in the care home’s garden
A carer was suspended after obtaining 20 Easter eggs for disabled residents at the Dorset facility where she worked.
Alison Newey wanted to help the residents enjoy the holiday – but her sweet gesture led to complaints that she did not follow the correct policy, and she resigned after an investigation was launched.
Ms Newey sued the care home for unfair dismissal, and has now won a payout of £23,409.
An employment tribunal also found that she did, in fact, follow the correct process.
The tribunal, held in Southampton, heard that Ms Newey had worked since March 2020 for Encompass Care Organisation UK as a team leader in the Prince of Wales supported living facility in Dorchester, Dorset.
The facility caters to adults with disabilities, including severe learning disabilities.
Ms Newey was suspended in March 2024 following the Easter egg incident and an investigation was launched. She resigned the following day.
The Prince of Wales’ operations manager Andrew Hallett told the tribunal that concerns were also raised about wifi and a printer being installed in the home.
“He stated that he, Mr Hallett and [operations director Marianne] Anderson were unclear as to the basis upon which those items had been acquired but they reached the conclusion that they appeared to have been acquired in breach of the data protection policy and the donations acceptance and refusal policy,” the tribunal’s decision said.
The tribunal found that Ms Newey had sought donations of Easter eggs in order to run an egg hunt for the residents in the property’s garden.
Ms Anderson accepted that Ms Newey was following, or at least trying to follow, the correct charitable donation process.
On the other allegations, Ms Newey had not filled out the right documentation when purchasing a printer for residents in October 2023, and some wifi was installed on devices which might be insecure – although the tribunal found this “presented no risk to anyone” as Mr Hallett removed it from those devices.
Mr Hallett made “bald assertions” to the tribunal that “it was appropriate to suspend [Ms Newey] as a safeguard” to make sure that she did not do any more work against company policy.
Employment Judge James Dawson said: “As a matter of fact, [Ms Newey] was not in breach of any policies in respect of the donation of the Easter eggs.
“It would have taken very little effort for [Encompass] to find that out.
“But even if there had been a risk that she was in breach of the policy, suspension was not required to alleviate that risk; [Ms Newey] could simply have been told not to do any more with charitable donations.”
Ms Anderson also referred Ms Newey to the police and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
The DBS referral was dismissed at the first stage, and the police took no further action after investigating.
Judge Dawson found that Ms Newey was “motivated by the best interests of the residents” as she saw them, and that a reasonable way for her employer to deal with it would have been to give her a warning, not a suspension.
The judge found that it was not appropriate to suspend Ms Newey, and said: “There was no need for it. It was simply a knee-jerk reaction based on an assumption by Mr Hallett and his colleagues that if allegations are made which need investigating, suspension is appropriate.”
Ms Newey’s claim for unfair dismissal was successful.
Another claim that she made, disability discrimination, was dismissed.