Mr H Howlett v Michael Hall School Limited — 2024

The claimant was employed as a teacher by Michael Hall School and was dismissed after a process said to concern gross misconduct arising from two alleged safeguarding matters: an educational trip to Battle Abbey in October 2020, and mask-wearing by his class at a talent show later that month. The tribunal accepted that dismissal occurred and that the respondent relied on conduct as the potentially fair reason under section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996.

On the trip issue, the tribunal found that the school’s Educational Visits Policy had not been updated to reflect the electronic iSAMS consent system introduced in 2019, that teachers did not control or directly access the consents, and that SLT was required to approve trips and check the documentation. It found that the claimant had emailed his line manager, Ms Hawker, about the trip and had received an email on 14 October 2020 which he reasonably understood as approval, while the respondent’s own witnesses did not understand how the consent system operated. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not solely responsible for the missing consents and that the school’s own failure to maintain and operate the system properly was central to what occurred.

On the talent show issue, the tribunal found that mandatory mask wearing was not the school’s policy at the time, that there was no proper risk assessment or exemption list in place, and that the emails issued shortly before the event did not amount to a clear or well-supported policy change. It accepted that some pupils in the claimant’s class wore masks and that others later removed them after seeing another class without masks. The tribunal was not persuaded that the claimant intended to misdirect pupils, or that the respondent had established the allegation that he instructed them only to wear masks if anxious or uncomfortable.

The tribunal held that the investigation was inadequate because the investigator did not interview key witnesses, did not obtain a proper account from Ms Stephenson who was central to both allegations, did not disclose or test material that might have assisted the claimant, and did not properly analyse the school’s own responsibilities under the policy. It also found that the disciplinary and appeal stages were rushed, poorly documented and affected by decision-makers who did not properly understand the relevant policy framework, relied on matters not put to the claimant, or took into account undisclosed and inaccurate information about previous incidents. Applying the Burchell approach and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal concluded that none of the three Burchell elements was satisfied and that dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The judgment ends by stating that a remedy hearing would be listed separately.