A CHARITY supporting victims of rape acted fairly when it dismissed a counsellor for failing to keep proper case records, the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal has found.
Dismissing Julie Johnson’s claims for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages and workplace discrimination, the tribunal said that Jersey Action Against Rape worked in an area of ‘the utmost importance’ and that Islanders’ confidence in it should not by affected by the case.
The tribunal heard that concerns about Ms Johnson’s record keeping in January this year led to an investigation that revealed that around 30 files she was responsible for lacked contracts, counselling notes and other paperwork constituting what the tribunal described as record-keeping ‘fundamental to the deeply sensitive’ nature of the charity’s work.
After suspending Ms Johnson, JAAR required her to attend a disciplinary hearing at which she was dismissed for gross misconduct, a note of the hearing produced by the charity states: ‘As a consequence of this incident, I feel terribly sorry for those clients who have no records or counselling notes or gaps or missing data which could limit or damage their ability to take their case to trial.’
Following her dismissal, a decision which was maintained following an appeal, Ms Johnson took the charity to the tribunal, claiming that its actions had been flawed in a number of respects with the result that her dismissal had been unfair.
But tribunal deputy chair Advocate Cyril Whelan, sitting with panel members Clive Holloway and Michael de la Haye, said that transcripts of the disciplinary hearing and the subsequent appeal showed the processes were conducted with ‘textbook propriety’.
Rejecting the claim for unfair dismissal, the tribunal also found that there was no merit in a further claim for workplace discrimination based on the charity’s alleged failure to take account of Ms Johnson’s ‘anxiety’, something for which the tribunal noted there was ‘no clinical or other evidence’.
In his judgment, Advocate Whelan said: ‘[JAAR’s] mission and its work are to be valued and applauded and nothing which emerges from this case should deter anyone from placing confidence in the respondent charity. An individual fell far short of the standards championed by the charity. On discovering that to be the case, the charity moved decisively to remedy the matter so far as it could be remedied. The charity continues to subscribe to the highest values of good order and confidentiality and remains worthy of trust in its voluntarily funded enterprise.’
