Mr J. Vieira v East Sussex College Group (escg) — 2021

Mr J. Vieira was employed by East Sussex College Group and was promoted in November 2017 to Motor Vehicle Lecturer. The tribunal found that, although there had been some informal understanding that the Cert Ed qualification had not been mentioned to him when the role was offered, the written appointment letter, contract and policy required him to start the teaching qualification within two years of appointment. It also found that he knew the qualification requirement applied to staff in his role, had access to the policy, and chose not to read the written terms when they were sent to him.

The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was the claimant’s lack of the Cert Ed qualification and his refusal to undertake the necessary training. It found that this reason related to qualifications within s.98(2)(a) ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the argument that there had been a binding oral agreement, variation, waiver of clause 22, or other representation removing the requirement. It found that the staffing change form, appointment letter and contract showed the qualification requirement formed part of the claimant’s employment terms.

On fairness, the tribunal applied s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the range of reasonable responses approach. It found that the respondent had legitimate reasons to require the qualification, had given the claimant time and repeated opportunities to reconsider, had offered the course free of charge with support, had considered extending time, and had looked for alternative roles but found none suitable. It accepted that the claimant remained unequivocal that he would not do the course at any point, including on appeal.

The tribunal concluded that there were no serious procedural flaws and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed and was dismissed. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded.