In the case of Miss Megan Crew and Miss Jo Mason v Three Milestone Education Ltd the Claimants were Teaching Assistants at the Respondent school. The school caters for children with special or additional needs in the 7 to 16 age group.
Miss Mason was dismissed with effect from 16 August 2021 for gross misconduct: first, that she knowingly had class A drugs delivered to the school during working hours (the drug was cocaine). Secondly, that she knowingly asked another member of staff (Miss Crew) to remove the drugs from her car to stop them being found by a police search of her vehicle which was imminent.
Miss Crew was dismissed with effect from 27 August 2021 for gross misconduct. First, discussing drugs and making gestures about drugs with Miss Mason in the school. Secondly, that she knew that class A drugs (cocaine) were being delivered to the school. Thirdly, that she colluded with Miss Mason to remove the drugs from Miss Mason’s vehicle to stop them being found.
Concerns about the Claimants discussing the supply and taking of drugs were reported by members of staff to the Head Teacher.
The disciplinary hearing with Miss Mason took place on 16 August 2021. It was heard by Mike Abbott the Deputy Head Teacher. At the outset of the hearing, Miss Mason attended with her mother. Miss Mason’s plan was her mother would sit next to her in the course of the disciplinary hearing but Mr Abbott essentially asked Miss Mason’s mother to leave the room because the rules of the Respondent were that only colleagues or union representatives could represent.
Employment Judge Smail said TME knew Mason was disabled and “might need support”, and that the suspension letter had forbidden communication with colleagues, which is why she asked her mother to act as representative, which was refused.
EJ Smail said this was an “easy adjustment to make” and Mason was “more than minimally” disadvantaged by the decision, adding that Abbott “should have been briefed by HR”. Her claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments in the form of representation by her mother succeeded.
On this, EJ Smail also said that while Abbott did not intend to “do anything”, excluding her mother did have the effect of “creating an intimidating environment” for Mason. He upheld her claim of unintended harassment.
Whilst Miss Crew was procedurally unfairly dismissed due to the decision maker in the disciplinary being the investigator in the other case, there was a hundred percent chance she would be fairly dismissed anyway in due course, and she contributed in the alternative one hundred percent to her own dismissal.
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.
