Can a employee in a "Care" setting be legally dismissed without proof of wrong doing

[RATTER15]

I am aware of a situation where an employee has been suspended under allegations of abuse toward a vulnerable person in his care.
The home clearly has a "duty of care" to protect these people but if no proof can be found could they still dismiss him, the residents obviously need protecting and allowing him back on the premises would be a danger to those vulnerable people even though a case has not been proven.

How would the home stand on dismissing this person on the "my word against his" evidence of one staff member.

[boxtops]

IMO - he should be suspended while the incident is investigated - if there is no proper evidence, surely the home is leaving itself open to a future claim for unfair dismissal? Unless the contract of employment specifies certain behaviour which can warant immediate dismissal, of course?

[matron 22]

This will have also been reported to the authorities who will also do an
investigation. Decision would then be made following a thorough investigation

[boxtops]

CQC comes to mind, too....

[RATTER15]

Thats why im curious as to how the home can adequately protect vulnerable people, how many times can this person get away with this behaviour? I think there should be a get out where the home could say that they have sufficient evidence to suggest a significant risk to a client and put the welfare of the clients before the fear of being sued. A difficult one I know.

[boxtops]

Have you got a whistleblowing policy, ratter?

[RATTER15]

Im not sure what clout P.O.V.A would have in this situation or even if they would be involved.

[RATTER15]

Boxy, the person has been reported under the whistle blowing policy and been suspended today, its just that there is a lot of here-say about this individual and the things he has done but little proof if any.

I hasten to add that I am not talking about myself here, I am on 10 days annual leave, broken up with a few meetings. I am however involved on the whistle blowing side.

[buildersmate]

You use the words 'without proof of wrong-doing'.

There isn't a need to 'prove' anything in these situations. The proof required in criminal convictions is 'beyond reasonable doubt' but in civil law (and employment law is really a sub-set of that) the burden of proof would be a balance of probabilities.

What actually happens is that the employer, having suspended the employee' should conduct a reasonable investigation, using a reasonable process (which should include inviting the employee to an interview to hear his/her side of the story) and come to a conclusion as to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. There isn't a need to 'prove' anything - if the manager conducting the investigation concludes that from the evidence provided that it believes that the misconduct has taken place, the employer can decide what to do in terms of sanctions (There is normally a review of the decision process first).

If the misconduct is considered extreme, it may decide the conduct constitutes gross misconduct for which a possible sanction is dismissal without notice. Dismissal for (simple) misconduct, with paid notice, is perhaps quite rare - final written warning is more likely.
If the dismissed employee feels aggrieved he/she can always appeal - firstly to the employer, then secondly to an Employment Tribunal.