In the case of Mr G Coleman v Doncaster Culture & Leisure Trust the Claimant was giving a swimming lesson to a group of year 5 or 6 children from a local primary school. In the course of that lesson, the Claimant stated to one of the female pupils that ‘it looks like you work out’. The Claimant accepts that he made this remark.
On the same day, the school contacted the Respondent to complain about this comment being made to one of the pupils, describing it as inappropriate, and one that made the student and the schoolteacher feel uncomfortable. Prior to the next lesson, the school contacted Respondent on behalf of the girl’s parents to find out if the same teacher would be giving the swimming lesson.
The Claimant was suspended on full pay on 1 October 2022. He was interviewed along with a colleague who was there at the time. The Claimant accepted making the comments. The colleague, Ms McGarry made some additional remarks which the Claimant accepts were not taken into account in the course of the investigation or the decision to dismiss.
The disciplinary hearing took place on 11 October 2022. At the end of the hearing, the Respondent informed the Claimant that his actions were a clear safeguarding concern, that the comment was inappropriate and had caused upset and potential damage to the child, and to the Respondent reputationally. The Respondent decided this was a gross misconduct issue.
The Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect. The Claimant appealed and the decision was upheld on appeal on 21 October 2022.
Employment Judge Sills acknowledged that in some respects, the decision to dismiss the Claimant can be seen to be somewhat harsh. This was dismissal for a first offence. It was a single remark made. The Claimant acknowledged he made the remark and now acknowledges to his credit that the remark was inappropriate.
However, it is necessary to consider the Respondent’s position, as an organisation providing swimming lessons to primary school children. The teachers who give those lessons are in a position of trust. EJ Sills accepted that inappropriate behaviour by swimming teachers employed by the Respondent can lead to reputational damage. This can be seen in the present case when the school first raised the issue of the Claimant’s conduct with the Respondent on the day of the incident, and the parents of the child subsequently sought clarification through the school as to whether Claimant would be teaching the class before deciding whether the daughter would attend the next lesson.
The Claimant accepts that the comment was inappropriate. It is a comment made by an adult male in a position of trust to a female child aged 10 or 11 about that child’s body and physical appearance when the child was in swimwear and in front of other people. The comment demonstrates he had been observing her physical appearance. In that context, however intended, the comment is highly inappropriate.
EJ Sills found that the Claimant’s conduct was conduct that brought or might bring the Respondent’s name into disrepute and so on this basis the Respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss the Claimant.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
