Care worker was fairly dismissed after taking a service user home -

Written by

July 3, 2026

Care worker was fairly dismissed after taking a service user home

An employment tribunal in Glasgow has ruled that a care provider acted fairly in dismissing a support worker for taking a vulnerable service user to his family home for New Year’s Day.

Mr McPhail, who had worked for Lifeways Group since August 2018, was dismissed for gross misconduct after taking the disabled service user to his home to spend New Year’s Day with his family. He argued he had acted out of kindness after the service user’s family said they could not accommodate him and maintained he had the individual’s best interests at heart.

The service user received 24-hour support from McPhail and two other support workers. The tribunal heard that the service user’s brother’s welfare guardianship had lapsed by the time of the incident.

A social worker reported the matter to management in February 2025, prompting an investigation. Lifeways alleged that McPhail had failed to properly record the visit, had not declared a conflict of interest and had crossed professional boundaries by developing a personal relationship with the service user.

Tribunal claims

Frozen food worker loses ‘too cold to work’ tribunal claim

Agoraphobic employee refused hybrid working discriminated against

Gousto worker sacked for eating peanuts off the factory floor

During the investigation, McPhail denied attempting to conceal what had happened.

“I wrote down that he came to my house and had a great New Year’s dinner with me and my family,” he said. “I even have pictures of [the service user] at mine during it with my family and sent them to [the service user’s] brother, he was very pleased with it.”

McPhail said the service user (who must remain anonymous for legal reasons) had a great time and even asked when he was coming back.

At the disciplinary hearing, McPhail accepted that he had crossed a professional boundary but said he believed he had acted appropriately in difficult circumstances.

“We had been going through a turbulent time in the service. Staff members had left, and one long-standing staff member had died. The place was in turmoil,” he said.

“The [service user] was self-harming, agitated and asking for [the member of staff who died]. The family then stated that the [service user] couldn’t go home with them for New Year’s Day, so I suggested to the family that I could take him to my home for New Year’s Day and they approved this.”

He added: “I felt I was doing a good thing. I did cross a boundary, but I always had the best interests of the [service user] in mind.”

Gross misconduct

Lifeways concluded that McPhail had committed gross misconduct by breaching professional boundaries and exposing both the service user and his own family to unnecessary risk.

In its dismissal letter, the company said: “Suggesting and agreeing to take [the service user] to your home with your family members present is a breach of boundaries and you did so fully aware of the identified risks associated with [the service user].

“Not only did you put [the service user] at risk, but you also put yourself and your family members at risk.”

The employer also found that McPhail had failed to appreciate that the local authority, rather than the service user’s brother, held guardianship, and said he had no authority to make the decision without management approval.

Alternatives to dismissal

Chair of Lifeways’ disciplinary committee Keith Anderson said the company had considered alternatives to dismissal. He added that it was particularly serious that the claimant did not view what had happened as a conflict of interest or a breach of professional boundaries, when a risk assessment would have exposed the real risks. Anderson told the tribunal of his concerns about the failure of the claimant to recognise the seriousness of his actions. He took account of McPhail’s length of service and his previous unblemished record, but believed that meant he ought to have known better.

Dismissing the unfair dismissal claim, Employment Judge Muriel Robison accepted that McPhail had been a committed care worker and understood why he felt aggrieved by his dismissal.

“The claimant’s representatives asked the tribunal to find that the claimant was a professional and considered carer in a 24/7 service in the service user’s home, which I have no reason to doubt,” she said.

“I fully understand why the claimant believes he has been harshly treated for what he says was ‘an act of kindness’ in difficult circumstances at work, and why he does not think it was sufficiently serious to justify his dismissal.”

However, she emphasised that the tribunal’s role was not to substitute its own view for that of the employer.

“There is a range of reasonable responses open to an employer and even if this tribunal considers that dismissal was too harsh in the particular circumstances, the particular context in which the respondent operates means that what might be reasonable in one context is not in another.”

Reasonable responses

Judge Robison concluded: “I could not therefore say that dismissal in the particular circumstances of this case was unfair because dismissal for gross misconduct was within range of reasonable responses open to the respondent. The claim must therefore be dismissed.”

The judgment underlined the importance of maintaining professional boundaries in care settings and demonstrates that tribunals are likely to give employers a wide margin of appreciation where safeguarding concerns and conflicts of interest arise, even where an employee’s actions were motivated by compassion.