Mr Simon Harding (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant was employed as a primary school teacher and was dismissed on 8 March 2020 for two allegations of misconduct involving Pupil A: making inappropriate comments about the pupil's contact with his father and Social Services, and deliberately pushing the pupil so that he fell backwards onto the floor. The claimant accepted that she made the comments, but denied that she pushed the pupil. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's own CPOMS entry described giving Pupil A a "gentle push" and apologising for pushing him, which was the most contemporaneous account from her own hand.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant had committed both acts, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It accepted the investigating officer's treatment of Pupil A's account as a truthful account given in an age-appropriate interview, and found that the evidence from Mrs Woodmansey and the claimant's CPOMS entry supported the conclusion that the push occurred. The tribunal rejected the challenge to the investigation process, including the complaint that the claimant was questioned more rigorously than Mrs Woodmansey, and found that any internal inconsistencies were properly explored.

The tribunal also found it reasonable for the disciplinary hearing to proceed in the claimant's absence on 18 March 2020, given the occupational health advice that there was no medical reason why she could not participate, the earlier postponements, the support of her union representative, and the availability of an appeal rehearing. It held that the appeal panel reviewed the case afresh and that the whole disciplinary process, including appeal, was fair. The tribunal accepted that both allegations amounted to gross misconduct and concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

On the wrongful dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the respondent proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the misconduct amounted to a repudiatory breach entitling it to dismiss without notice. It therefore found that the respondent was not in breach of contract by summarily dismissing the claimant, and both complaints were dismissed.