At first glance, it sounds like a positive story. A care home team leader organised an Easter event for residents, complete with Easter eggs and entertainment. But what began as an attempt to create a joyful experience for vulnerable residents ultimately ended in an employment tribunal, highlighting important lessons for employers about suspension, consultation, and workplace trust.
What happened
Alison Newey, a team leader at Encompass Care, organised an Easter egg hunt for residents at a supported living home. As part of the event, Easter eggs were sourced and a Peter Rabbit entertainer was hired.
However, concerns were later raised by management during an internal review. Questions were asked about whether the correct internal processes had been followed when obtaining the Easter eggs and whether appropriate checks had been carried out on the entertainer’s insurance and DBS certification.
Following the review, Newey’s responsibilities were suddenly changed. She was told she would only carry out managerial duties for two days a week and would spend the remaining three days working care shifts despite this not forming part of her job description.
Shortly afterwards, she was suspended for allegedly breaching company policies.
The Tribunal’s Findings
The Southampton employment tribunal concluded that the suspension was “without reasonable and proper cause” and described it as a “knee-jerk reaction.”
While there were some concerns around record-keeping and internal procedures, the tribunal found there was no sufficient justification for suspension. In fact, some of the issues raised could have been resolved quickly, for example, confirming the entertainer’s DBS and insurance status with a simple phone call.
The tribunal also highlighted a second major issue: the unilateral change to the employee’s role.
Changing someone’s duties without consultation or agreement can undermine the fundamental relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee.
In this case, the tribunal concluded that these actions damaged that relationship to such an extent that the employee felt forced to resign, resulting in a finding of constructive unfair dismissal.
Why This Matters for Employers
Suspension is sometimes necessary, particularly where there are concerns about safety, evidence integrity, or serious misconduct. However, it should never be an automatic response to a workplace concern.
Employers must carefully assess whether suspension is genuinely required and ensure the decision is proportionate and justified.
Similarly, changing an employee’s role or responsibilities without consultation can quickly escalate into a contractual breach if not handled properly.
What HR should learn
This case highlights several important lessons for employers:
- Suspension should not be a default response
Suspension should only be used where there is a clear and justified reason. Employers should always consider alternatives first. - Investigate before acting
A measured investigation may reveal that issues can be resolved quickly without formal disciplinary action. - Consult before changing roles
Job roles and responsibilities are usually fundamental terms of employment contracts. Changes should be discussed and agreed wherever possible. - Protect trust and confidence
Employment relationships rely on mutual trust. Actions that appear rushed or disproportionate can damage this relationship and increase the risk of tribunal claims.
Avoiding Similar Workplace Disputes
What began as a well-intentioned Easter event for residents ultimately turned into a legal dispute because of how the situation was handled internally.
For employers, the lesson is clear: process and proportionality matter. Taking time to assess the situation, communicate with employees, and follow proper HR procedures can prevent minor workplace issues from escalating into costly legal disputes.
