In Dickenson v (1) The Governing Body of Easington Lane Primary School (2) Sunderland City Council, Dickenson (D) had 21 years’ service and was employed as the School Business Manager. D met with the Council’s Finance Officer during which it was indicated that the school’s projected income would not be achieved. This together with an increase in rates meant that the school would not have the surplus that had been projected. In a subsequent conversation with a colleague, D mentioned redundancies and indicated that it could happen to anyone. D was suspended based on allegations that she had a conversation with a colleague about the possibility of redundancies in the future and that any major concerns D had about budgets had not been reported to school management in finance meetings.

The Personnel Committee decided no disciplinary action would be taken as: (i) while the redundancy issue should not have been discussed, there was no malice involved; and (ii) the failure to report the budgetary concerns was a capability issue, rather than misconduct, which would be dealt with via the School’s Capability Policy by a review of D’s role responsibility and reporting lines. When D returned to work, she was taken to the Head Teacher’s office and informed that she would no longer have any line management responsibilities and was expected to work in the main office at reception updating the school’s database until a performance improvement plan was in place. D was told that once she had updated the database she could do “officey things”.

An ET upheld D’s constructive dismissal claim. Firstly, D’s suspension was unjustified and in breach of the school’s own policy. Given the circumstances, it was not necessary or appropriate for D to be excluded from work to carry out an investigation into the conversation about redundancies or the financial issues. Secondly, with regard to the financial matter, D had not been found guilty of any misconduct, no conclusion had been reached that D had failed in her duty and had been told that this issue would be dealt with under the Capability Policy. But when D returned to work, her financial duties and line management responsibilities were removed, she was told that she was expected to work in the main office at reception updating the school’s database and she should do “officey things”. D’s treatment was a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

This update 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. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  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, SM&B 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.