M Kearns Tribunal Members: Mr G Doherty Ms L Taylor Mr C Ross v Represented by:10 Mr M Cameron - Solicitor The Board of Management of — 2022

The claimant had been employed as a lecturer since 22 August 1996. After informal student complaints in September 2020, his line manager, Nicola Leonard, met him on 15 September 2020 without telling him in advance what the meeting was about. On 5 October 2020 she sent him an email with an attached summary of the earlier meeting. The email stated that most of the social science groups he taught had raised difficulty understanding course content because of his delivery style, said his teaching practices needed to be adapted, offered training or shadowing, and proposed monthly course feedback. The claimant resigned later that day and said he considered himself constructively dismissed.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had been pressured to commit teaching malpractice or to engage in excessive direction of students contrary to SQA and CfE rules. It found that his earlier complaints were largely about general concerns in Scottish further education, IT and classroom conditions, rather than management requiring him to do anything improper. It nevertheless held that the 5 October 2020 email and attachment, read objectively, went beyond informally addressing student concerns and amounted to detailed instructions and performance management. In the context that the respondent did not formally appraise lecturer performance, treated student feedback as an unreliable indicator of lecturer performance, and had its own capability procedure with notice and representation rights, the respondent did not have reasonable and proper cause for the way it managed the matter.

The tribunal found that the language and content of the 5 October 2020 correspondence were likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. It held that the claimant resigned in response to that breach, although his wider frustration with the Scottish education system and earlier interest in voluntary severance were also relevant background. The tribunal therefore found that he had been constructively dismissed within s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and that the dismissal was unfair. Remedy was a basic award of £14,526 and a compensatory award of £10,023 before a 25% reduction under s.207A TULRCA 1992 for failure to raise a formal grievance, leaving £7,517. The compensatory award comprised three months' net pay of £7,137, pension loss of £2,386 and £500 for loss of statutory rights, producing a total award of £22,043. No recoupment applied.