In Person v Respondent — 2021

The claimant was a secondary school teacher employed from June 2016 to 30 April 2020. In February 2019 the principal raised performance concerns after a lesson observation and a support meeting was held on 1 March 2019. After a 28 February 2019 classroom incident in which the claimant stepped on a pupil's hand, the respondent received safeguarding allegations including inappropriate touching and rude conduct towards the pupil's mother. On LADO advice the claimant was suspended on 4 March 2019, Mr Kidd carried out the investigation, and on 5 April 2019 he concluded that there was no case to answer or insufficient evidence on the allegations. The suspension was lifted on 9 April 2019 and management advice followed, including that the claimant should not teach the pupil again and should receive training on communication, behaviour management and classroom presence.

The tribunal found that the performance meeting and support plan were within managerial discretion and did not amount to a breach of contract. It accepted that the respondent had reasonable cause to address behaviour management and lesson progress, and it found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the support measures. It also held that the suspension was a neutral act, was not administered callously, and was justified by the LADO's recommendation. The investigation was found to have been conducted as promptly as reasonably possible, the claimant's interview did address the allegation of inappropriate touching, and the allegation was found to be unfounded.

The central issue was whether the respondent acted in breach by not disciplining the pupil after concluding that the allegations were unfounded. The tribunal held that this was a judgment call, that the pupil may have believed her allegations to be true or substantially true, and that the respondent had sufficiently cleared the claimant by telling the family and relevant agencies that the allegations were unfounded. It found that it was objectively reasonable not to impose a formal sanction on a 12-year-old pupil and that the failure to do so was not an act likely to destroy trust and confidence. The claimant resigned on 11 February 2020, but the tribunal found there was no constructive dismissal and therefore the unfair dismissal claim failed.