Mr M Peters v Mansfield Town FC Limited — 2021

Mr M Peters was employed by Mansfield Town FC Limited from 21 June 2015 until 9/12 August 2019 as Head of Academy Coaching. The tribunal found that his role involved coaching under-18s and that, after an FA supervision order arising from a 2016 private law case, he could only work when supervised by appropriate adults. That supervision was initially workable when the Academy was smaller and based at one site, but by 2019 the Academy had expanded across multiple sites and John Dempster, who had previously provided most of the supervision, had become First Team Manager and could no longer continue in that role.

The tribunal accepted that, after the FA permitted Mr Peters to return under an Interim Supervision Agreement dated 15 May 2019, the respondent reviewed what could be done to keep him in work. It found that the club considered whether Mr Dempster, Lee Glover, Richard Cooper, Simon Ward, the physiotherapist, or another coach could provide supervision, and also considered alternative roles. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that these options were not practical because of the nature of the Academy’s work, the presence of under-18s across the sites, the need for constant supervision, and the operational pressures on the staff who would have been responsible.

The reason for dismissal was found to be that it was no longer possible for Mr Peters to perform his role because he had to be constantly supervised in the presence of under-18s, combined with the changed structure of the Academy and the pressure from the FA and Brooksby College to ensure compliance with the supervision arrangement. The tribunal held that this was a genuine and substantial reason capable of justifying dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found the procedure reasonable. Mr Peters was warned on 19 July 2019, invited to a meeting on 2 August and then attended a further meeting on 9 August with representation. He was told the potential outcome could be dismissal, given written reasons, and had an appeal heard by a different manager, Paul Broughton, who upheld the dismissal by letter dated 30 September 2019. Although the tribunal described dismissal as a harsh decision and noted that it might not have been the decision other employers would have taken, it concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and therefore fair.