The case of Dronsfield v University of Reading looked at altering an investigation report result which resulted in an unfair dismissal.
The case of Dronsfield v University of Reading looked at precisely this issue. In this case, the Claimant was dismissed for misconduct after he had a sexual relationship with one of his students and failed to disclose that relationship, contrary to the University’s policy on disclosure. The Claimant could only be dismissed for “good cause”, as defined in the relevant statute governing the University. A ground for “good cause” was “conduct of an immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office or employment”.
Investigators were appointed to look into the allegations that the Claimant:
During the course of the investigation, the Claimant admitted to having had sex with a student (although he denied that this amounted to a “relationship”). The investigators produced a draft written report and, in doing so, wrote comments that were favourable to the Claimant – including an opinion that there was no evidence of immoral, scandalous or disgraceful behaviour, nor an abuse of power, and that it was difficult to conclude that there had been a breach of the duty of care.
The report was subsequently amended prior to it being submitted, on the advice of the University’s in-house solicitor. This was on the grounds that the investigators appeared to be straying beyond the remit of their investigation, and into the realm of what the disciplinary panel should have been deciding.
Following his dismissal (and subsequent unsuccessful appeal), the Claimant brought employment tribunal proceedings, arguing that his dismissal was unfair. He argued that the amendments to the investigation report denied him the benefit of the full findings of the investigators.
The employment tribunal disagreed and the employment appeal tribunal upheld their findings. It was held to be reasonable to amend the investigation report in this manner. Importantly, it was not suggested in any way in this case that the investigators had withheld any evidential material collated during their investigation – as all of that evidence was available for the disciplinary panel. The elements removed were done so on the basis of legal advice for reasonable reasons. There was no suggestion of any kind of impropriety – the investigators had not been pressurised to change their report and, when the issue had been considered as part of the internal appeal, the suggestion that the changes had been made to make dismissal more likely had been rejected.
Here, amending the report did not render the dismissal unfair – but it took the University two separate employment tribunal hearings, and two separate employment appeal tribunal hearings, to get to this point. Clearly, this could have been avoided if the evaluative opinions of the investigators had never been added to their report in the first place.
It is key that employers ensure that their investigators have sufficient training and experience to carry out the role asked of them. This case is a clear illustration as to why it would have been better for all concerned had the investigators been clear on what issues and aspects they should and should not have been addressing, before they started to draft their report.
Investigators need to be clear on the scope of the allegations they are being asked to look into – and their role should be limited to a fact-finding exercise, with the investigation report clearly identifying all the evidence uncovered during the process. The report should be their own conclusions, and, whilst they are free to take legal or HR advice, they should not be pressurised into changing those conclusions.
In a disciplinary context, recommendations should be limited only to whether or not the evidence supports proceeding to a disciplinary hearing. It is not for the investigators to comment on what sanction(s) may or may not be appropriate, nor for them to include their own personal evaluative opinion on whether or not the allegations are well-founded. This can be hard – as some degree of judgment is required to be able to assess whether or not the matter should proceed; and where an individual admits the conduct alleged as part of the investigation, there may well be a temptation to comment on the gravity (or otherwise) of that conduct. However, clear terms of reference for any investigation, and comprehensive training, can help investigators from straying into the wrong territory.
Regardless of the outcome of ballots on industrial action, unless there is drastic change to funding for schools in relation to pay increases, it will be unusual to find any organisational budget that is not impacted by the current economic situation.
There’s been little evidence of interventions or financial management reviews this year and it appears the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) has re-focussed on financial delivery. It’s also telling that there were no discernible changes to the reporting of financial irregularities in the Academies Trust Handbook 2022.
The Children’s Commissioner, Rachel De Souza, has recently published a report “Beyond the labels: a SEND system which works for every child, every time”, which she intends to sit alongside the DfE’s SEND Review (2019) and SEND Green Paper (2022) and which she hopes will put children’s voices at the heart of the government’s review of SEND system.
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
There’s greater opportunity than ever for parents, carers and guardians to voice any concerns they have relating to their child’s education and for their concerns to be heard and to be taken seriously. While most staff in schools and academies are conscious of their legal duties relating to complaints management, many are struggling to cope with such a significant increase in the volume of complaints they must manage.
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
We’re pleased to collaborate with Lloyds Bank, who recently asked us and audit and risk specialists Crowe UK to offer guidance that academy trusts would find helpful when considering setting up a trading subsidiary.
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.