Home | Business Law | Employment Advice for Employers | Probation officer unfairly dismissed after accusation of abuse

Probation officer unfairly dismissed after accusation of abuse

June 26th 2019
 

By Joanne Stronach Head of Employment & HR

A probation officer has won her case of unfair dismissal after being accused of developing an abusive and controlling relationship with a former offender.

Julia Hyland had worked as a probation officer for the Greater Manchester Probation Service since 1998.

She was given the role of senior case manager for an individual referred to only as the Service User (SU) who had an 18-month community order following an incident of domestic assault involving his then partner.

After some time, SU alleged that Hyland had acted inappropriately in her role.

He made several claims, including that he had been allowed to stay over at her house, she had loaned him money, and she had been sending him pictures of herself and her family.

He also said that Hyland grew marijuana in her house, and they had smoked it together, and on one occasion she had got into bed with him late at night.

SU claimed he had been harassed by Hyland’s nephews and believed his life was in danger.

Hyland dismissed the allegations as “unbelievable” and “utter nonsense” but was suspended from work.

An investigation took place with SU backing up his claims with photos of the inside of Hyland’s home, and messages on his phone.

Hyland claimed these images were obtained from the internet, and the messages had been faked. The police searched her home and found no traces of marijuana.

The investigation decided that there was enough evidence to support SU’s allegations. Hyland was dismissed for having “failed to uphold the professional standards and breached boundaries expected of an offender manager.”

However, Employment Judge Sherratt said the investigation was flawed in that it had accepted SU’s accusations at face value and made no effort to verify Hyland’s explanations and defence.

He said Hyland’s livelihood was on the line, and there should have been a thorough assessment to verify the information provided. He said: “There seems to have been a blanket acceptance that anything said by SU was accurate.”

Cheshire & Greater Manchester Community Rehabilitation Company was ordered to make a basic award to Hyland of £12,225, a compensatory award of £39,927 and compensation for wrongful dismissal in the sum of £5,335.

If you would like more information about the issues raised in this article, or any aspect of employment law then please contact Joanne Stronach on 01228 516 666 or email her here.

Share on Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email
We'll call you...
 
This website uses cookies
This site uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. We use necessary cookies to make sure that our website works. We’d also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. By clicking “Allow All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
These cookies are required for basic functionalities such as accessing secure areas of the website, remembering previous actions and facilitating the proper display of the website. Necessary cookies are often exempt from requiring user consent as they do not collect personal data and are crucial for the website to perform its core functions.
A “preferences” cookie is used to remember user preferences and settings on a website. These cookies enhance the user experience by allowing the website to remember choices such as language preferences, font size, layout customization, and other similar settings. Preference cookies are not strictly necessary for the basic functioning of the website but contribute to a more personalised and convenient browsing experience for users.
A “statistics” cookie typically refers to cookies that are used to collect anonymous data about how visitors interact with a website. These cookies help website owners understand how users navigate their site, which pages are most frequently visited, how long users spend on each page, and similar metrics. The data collected by statistics cookies is aggregated and anonymized, meaning it does not contain personally identifiable information (PII).
Marketing cookies are used to track user behaviour across websites, allowing advertisers to deliver targeted advertisements based on the user’s interests and preferences. These cookies collect data such as browsing history and interactions with ads to create user profiles. While essential for effective online advertising, obtaining user consent is crucial to comply with privacy regulations.