Boss drove care home chef during lockdown but she was later sacked
A HARDWORKING care home chef who agreed to live in a retirement home “bubble” during the first lockdown was sacked for looking after her grandchildren when their mum went into labour.
Helen Meadows lost her job as kitchen manager at Cherry Tree Lodge Private Retirement Home in Southport even though one of the directors of the home, Gordon Ferguson, agreed to drive her to her daughter’s house.
And in a bizarre move, the company also claimed the fact she had taken a taxi to attend a disciplinary hearing, while she was suspended, amounted to gross misconduct, even though nothing in the Covid regulations prevented care workers from using public transport.
It also later emerged Mr Ferguson had himself attended a barbecue with care home manager Vanessa Garrett during the first lockdown, where members of her family were present.
Mrs Garrett’s husband, Lee Garrett, was also living on site and appeared to have broken government guidance by going on a non-essential journey to a shop to buy a bottle of prosecco.
Ms Meadows took her bosses to an employment tribunal after her sacking on June 8 last year, where employment judge Paul Humble found she had been unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal heard as the UK went into lockdown on March 23, 2020, the directors of Cherry Tree Lodge made it clear that if possible staff would have to move into the premises to protect their vulnerable residents – or face potentially losing their jobs.
Ms Meadows agreed to move in, but was working in the kitchens on May 17 last year when she got a text from her son-in-law, Darren Skidmore, saying that her daughter had given birth at hospital.
Mr Skidmore, who also worked in a different care home, asked if she could watch their other children while he went into hospital.
Ms Meadows asked her manager, Teresa Furco, who said she would need to check with Mr Ferguson.
According to the tribunal judgment: “A short time later, Mr Ferguson came through to the kitchen and congratulated the claimant on the arrival of her grandchild and said that he would give the claimant a lift.
“Mr Ferguson then drove the claimant to her daughter’s house at about 1.30pm. There was some dispute on the evidence as to whether
Mr Ferguson was aware that he was taking the claimant to her daughter’s home.
“Mr Ferguson said that he assumed he was taking the claimant to her own home whereas the claimant said that she told both Ms Fusco and Mr Ferguson that she was going to her daughter’s home.
“There was no dispute over the fact that Mr Ferguson was aware he was taking the claimant to look after her grandchildren in the absence of her daughter.”
Ms Meadows briefly spoke to her son-in-law and then looked after her grandchildren until he returned later that day, before walking back to Cherry Tree Lodge.
However the following day, she was called into a meeting with Mr Ferguson and Mrs Garrett who said they were not happy that she had visited her daughter’s home.
Ms Meadows was instructed to self-isolate at her own home for 14 days, which she did.
Ms Garrett became more concerned when she learned that Ms Meadows’ son-in-law worked at a care home where there had been a number of deaths from coronavirus.
A letter was sent to Ms Meadows on May 27 inviting her to an investigation meeting, which led to her suspension.
She was invited to a disciplinary hearing on June 4, in a gazebo on the grounds of the home, and later sacked for “putting staff and residents at risk” by having a brief conversation with her son-in-law.
The judge called the disciplinary and investigation process “incoherent”.
The tribunal heard no written rules had ever been provided to Ms Meadows about living in the home, no risk assessment had been carried out and no consideration had been given to her previous record when deciding to sack her.
Judge Humble wrote: “The failure to give consideration to the claimant’s employment history was not an insignificant omission.
“Aside from the fact the claimant had a good employment record with the respondent, she had in her own words ‘never been in any trouble’ during a 40-year employment history.
“She was conscientious, hardworking and, when called upon by the respondent, she had agreed to work within the confines of the care home, in part at least, to assist her work colleagues and employer during the pandemic.”
Judge Humble said the conversation with her son-in-law could have been considered a contributory factor to her sacking, but concluded if her bosses had acted reasonably it would have been only around 25% likely to lead to her dismissal.
He stated: “On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal did not find that the claimant lied to the respondent or that she placed the respondent’s staff or residents at any significant risk in the circumstances summarised in the preceding paragraph.
“Nor was there any coherent policy or procedure in place which the respondent demonstrated was breached by the claimant, let alone one which may have amounted to a contractual term.
“The tribunal find that the claimant was dismissed in breach of her contract of employment and she is entitled to her notice pay.”
A further hearing will be set to decide the level of any damages.