Community support worker wins unfair dismissal case after raising concerns about CEO

In Ms J Mayes v The Carrbridge Centre Limited Ms Mayes began her employment as a Community Support Worker with The Carrbridge Centre Limited. The centre, operating in Wirral, Merseyside, provides community support services to vulnerable families, children, and elderly residents.

Prior to her dismissal, Ms Mayes had raised concerns about the behaviour of CEO Matthew Gibbs, who she claimed exhibited aggression toward vulnerable volunteers, used inappropriate sexualised language, and mishandled his dog in the workplace.

Ms Mayes met with trustees Lesley Reith and Damian McGregor to raise these concerns, which she believed constituted a protected disclosure in the public interest. She argued that many service users and volunteers came from vulnerable backgrounds, and Gibbs’s behaviour could trigger trauma responses.

Employment Judge Johnson ruled that while Ms Mayes did raise legitimate workplace concerns, these did not constitute qualifying protected disclosures under Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the disclosures did not sufficiently allege any specific criminal offence, failure to comply with legal obligations, or endangerment to health and safety that would meet the statutory threshold.

The dismissal stemmed from Ms Mayes’s attendance at a community meeting. The respondent alleged she had participated in a group formed with the “malicious aim of removing the current management and CEO.”

The disciplinary hearing was conducted by trustee Roger Merry relying heavily on anonymous witness evidence from an individual who claimed Ms Mayes had been “riling others” against the centre’s management. Ms Mayes was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. Key issues identified included:

1. The investigation was flawed – Ms Mayes was not properly warned that the investigation had expanded to include the Woodchurch Hotel meeting
2. The respondent placed undue reliance on anonymous evidence without proper testing or corroboration
3. Other witnesses failed to attribute blame to Ms Mayes
4. A reasonable manager could not have concluded that attendance at a community meeting amounted to participation in a malicious group aiming to remove management

The tribunal noted that even if Ms Mayes had shown poor judgment in attending, this would not justify gross misconduct dismissal.

Employment Judge Johnson determined that Ms Mayes was unfairly dismissed. A remedy hearing has been scheduled to determine compensation.

The case serves as a reminder that employers must conduct thorough, transparent investigations and base disciplinary decisions on properly tested evidence rather than assumptions.