Tribunal supports decision to fire care officer

-

An employment tribunal has ruled that a Senior Officer at a Dundee care home was correctly found guilty of gross misconduct and upholds the decision to dismiss her.

Janice McMeekin, a Senior Care Officer at Magdalen House, a home for adults with learning disabilities, was initially suspended on full pay in February 2011 after it was revealed that she allowed a staff member who had turned up drunk, to stay in the sleepover room rather than send her home.

Following an investigation, Miss McMeekin was given a formal written warning to remain on her file for a year.

Shortly after that warning had expired, evidence emerged that she had not applied creams to the feet of a female resident which she was supposed to do.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

In the wake of this, evidence arose that she had not properly applied prescribed ointment to the eyes of a male resident and after three more cases came to light, senior management stepped in and spoke to Miss McMeekin.

She denied failing to apply the ointments and claimed that the other staff ”had it in for her.”

It was revealed that it was put to her that she may have difficulty applying the ointments, which was suggested with the aim of giving her an ”out,” and which would have allowed her to be given support and assistance, but she said she was fine and could manage her job.

Two further issues arose regarding medication administered by Miss McMeekin, and she was asked to attend a disciplinary meeting in March 2012.

At the meeting she claimed that those who had said she did not administer the ointments were lying, but did admit to having problems with her eyesight and varifocal glasses.

Priority Care Group Manager Linda Cuthill, who carried out the disciplinary hearing, concluded that Miss McMeekin was guilty of not applying the creams and this was seriously detrimental to the clients’ health.

As a result, Miss McMeekin’s behaviour was placed in the category of gross misconduct and she was dismissed.

Latest news

Curtis Holmes: Payroll is the driver for employee engagement

Payroll has long been treated as a back-office necessity: essential, but not something that shapes culture or drives engagement. This no longer stands.

Labour market yet to show major AI impact on jobs, govt adviser says

A government economic adviser has challenged predictions of widespread AI-driven unemployment, arguing labour market data has yet to show disruption.

Young workers ‘pressured into signing NDAs after workplace injuries’

Workers say injuries are being hidden behind confidentiality agreements while financial pressures leave many afraid to challenge unsafe conditions.

CIPD recognises 30 HR leaders driving change across UK workplaces

The CIPD has unveiled its HR30 list for 2026, recognising senior people leaders whose work has delivered measurable impact across organisations and workforces.
- Advertisement -

Brits dream of being their own boss, but still cling to the monthly pay cheque, survey reveals

Britons say they like the idea of self-employment, but most still value the security and stability of traditional jobs.

AI Coaching Won’t Replace Managers. It Will Expose Coaching Debt.

As AI coaching expands, employers may gain a clearer view of where manager support is falling short.

Must read

Tracy White: Who runs the world? Girls*

*Well, sort of.

Chelsea Feeney: Supreme Court decision for Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers – implications for employers

On Wednesday 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers. What does it mean?
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you