Mr Mohsin Patel v Acorn Care and Education Limited — 2022

Mr Patel was dismissed by Acorn Care and Education Limited on 19 December 2019 after two safeguarding-related incidents involving pupils at Belmont School. On 30 September 2019, the tribunal found that CCTV did not show a shoulder barge in the way Mr Patel had described, and that after a slight contact in a narrow corridor he followed DR into the classroom while visibly upset. The tribunal accepted that some allegations made against Mr Patel about pinning DR to a wall and threatening him were not proved, but it found that he raised his voice, confronted DR, and escalated the situation. On 8 October 2019, in an incident involving EA, the tribunal accepted that EA was disruptive and aggressive and that Mr Patel and a teaching assistant had used a Team Teach figure-of-four hold, but it found Mr Patel then punched EA in the face before moving to a bear hug. The tribunal accepted he acted in fear for his own safety, but held that punching a pupil was excessive and outside the school's safeguarding framework and his training.

The tribunal found that the respondent relied on conduct as the potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996. Applying the Burchell test, it held that Craig Albon genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation. The tribunal considered the investigation report, disciplinary hearing and appeal, and rejected the claimant's case that the process was procedurally unfair, that the appeal had been predetermined, or that he lacked adequate training. It found he understood the allegations, knew the relevant Team Teach, safeguarding and conduct policies, and had a full opportunity to put forward his account and mitigation at each stage.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's argument that the police decision not to prosecute should determine the employment outcome. It held that the criminal and internal disciplinary processes were different, and that it was reasonable for the respondent to focus on safeguarding standards for vulnerable pupils with SEMH needs and autism. The appeal officer, James Joyce, was entitled to conclude that even if Mr Patel believed he was acting in self-defence, punching a pupil in the face did not comply with the respondent's policies or the professional standards expected of staff. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, the wrongful dismissal claim failed for the same overall conduct findings, and the £50 arrears of pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal said it did not need to determine Polkey because unfair dismissal failed, but that if it had found unfair dismissal it would have reduced both basic and compensatory awards by 100% for contributory conduct. No monetary award was made.