Case 3303416/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K. Olliver v Licenced Trade Charity — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303416/2020
- Decision date
- 16 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K. Olliver
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant, Mrs K. Olliver, had been dismissed for conduct within s.98(2) ERA 1996 and that Mr Mullins genuinely believed she had been guilty of misconduct. The respondent relied on a series of parental and pupil complaints about the claimant’s communication, judgement and safeguarding practice, including allegations concerning a suspected pregnancy matter, an allegation of creating fear among students, and alleged poor record-keeping. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the outcome had been predetermined from 2 December 2019 and found that neither Christine Cunniffe nor Nikki Annable had influenced Sarah Sherwood’s investigation or Mr Mullins’ decision.
The tribunal held that the investigation was not reasonable because Rebecca Wilde, who had been identified as present during one of the most serious allegations, was not interviewed or asked for an account. That failure mattered because the allegations were serious, the key evidence from parents was second-hand, and the claimant did not attend either the investigation meeting or the disciplinary hearing to give her own account. The tribunal said that, taken individually and together, it was outside the band of reasonable responses not to obtain Rebecca Wilde’s evidence, and that this defect alone made the dismissal unfair.
A further ground of unfairness was the decision to proceed with the disciplinary hearing in the claimant’s absence on 6 January 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent had moved the process quickly, had not agreed a mutually convenient date despite the union’s requests, and knew that the claimant’s representative was on leave. It held that the claimant had indicated that she wished to defend the allegations, that the Christmas period affected representative availability, and that there was no good reason to insist on that date. The tribunal therefore concluded that the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. Remedy and the wrongful dismissal issue were left for the later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment only. Remedy and the wrongful dismissal issue were listed to be determined on 19 and 20 April 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
- British Homes Stores v Burchell
- Polkey v AE Drayton Services
- Weddel & Co. Ltd. v Tepper
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
- Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith
- Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.
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.