Case 3201913/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ann Mackey v Hearts Academy Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201913/2019
- Decision date
- 6 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Members
- Panel members
- Mr T Burrows, Mr T Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ann Mackey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Ann Mackey, a newly qualified teacher at Hearts Academy Trust, was summarily dismissed on 22 March 2019 after an allegation that she had struck a pupil around the head on 8 February 2019. She had ME and fibromyalgia, which the respondent accepted were disabilities known to it from April 2018. She brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and disability discrimination, including allegations about reasonable adjustments and detriment before dismissal.
The tribunal dismissed unfair dismissal for want of jurisdiction because Ms Mackey did not have two years' continuous employment. It held that her SCITT training between 2015 and 2017 was not employment by the respondent and did not create a continuous bridge to the teacher contract that started on 1 September 2017. The disability complaints other than dismissal were held to be out of time, and the tribunal found no basis to extend time. It also found that the occupational health recommendations from July 2018 had been discussed and implemented, and that by 4 February 2019 Ms Mackey had said she was fully happy with the support in place.
On the dismissal-related disability allegations, the tribunal found no link between Ms Mackey's disability and the suspension, investigation, NQT sign-off, or dismissal. It accepted that the respondent investigated because of a child protection allegation, not because of disability. The tribunal also recorded that all three members considered the process unfair and flawed, and said that if there had been a live unfair dismissal claim it would have succeeded.
The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal examined the investigation and appeal process in detail, including uncertainty in the first adult account, missing manuscript notes, the absence of independent corroboration, and concerns about fairness in the way the hearing was conducted. Unanimously, it found that it could not conclude on the balance of probabilities that Ms Mackey had struck or slapped the child. As a result, it found she was not guilty of gross misconduct and awarded notice pay of £8,700.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found Ms Mackey did not have two years' continuous employment with the respondent. The tribunal held her SCITT training from 2015 to 2017 was not employment and did not bridge the gap to her later teacher contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covers the disability discrimination complaints, including pre-dismissal detriment and reasonable adjustments, and the allegation that the dismissal was because of disability. The tribunal held the non-dismissal complaints were out of time and, in any event, found no causal link between disability and the suspension, investigation, NQT sign-off, or dismissal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that it could not conclude Ms Mackey struck or slapped the child on 8 February 2019, so she was not guilty of gross misconduct. Notice pay of £8,700 was awarded. | Upheld | — | £8,700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,700
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- two years' continuous employment under s.210 and s.212 ERA 1996
- balance of probabilities
- just and equitable extension of time
- s.15 EqA proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
- s.20 EqA reasonable adjustments duty
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.