An organist from the US has won a wrongful dismissal case at an employment tribunal against a parish church.
In June 2020 Dr Jenifer Fraser was sacked from her role as director of music role at St Mary and St Peter Church in Staines, Surrey, after the parish’s committee felt the position could be carried out by others for less money, and dismissed the experienced musician 10 years after she had gained the job in November 2010.
Following consultation between August and October, Dr Fraser took the case to tribunal on 1 November 2020. Her claims were for unfair dismissal – ultimately upheld by the judge – and sex discrimination and race discrimination; claims which were not upheld.
The judge, Judith George, at Reading tribunal, ruled the decision to remove Dr Fraser from her post was “manifestly unfair” and decided upon in a way that was “irregular”.
Tribunals
Worker wanting to WFH from Pakistan was unfairly dismissed
Museum worker wins unfair dismissal case on lack of formal warning
Lawyer unfairly dismissed over sexual harassment allegations
Dr Fraser’s duties in the role included playing the organ, organising choir practise and running a hand bell group. She said she first felt pressure to leave the post in 2016.
Dr Fraser alleged that “comments were made in poor taste about whether she would be willing to play British patriotic music because she is American”. However, the judge ruled this did not add up to evidence of race discrimination.
The panel heard that the organist had a “very high” salary – the exact level of which was not disclosed in the tribunal’s judgment.
The parish’s finances were poor and senior figures doubted they could afford a musician of Dr Fraser’s calibre, the tribunal was told.
Dr Fraser said she had been hurt by these remarks and claimed they were “slight on her professionalism”.
A standing committee meeting of the Parochial Church Council (PCC) was held in 2020 to examine whether savings could be made by looking at posts and salaries.
The tribunal report stated: “The collective view of the standing committee by the end of the meeting was that removing [Dr Fraser’s] post of director of music should be considered because the salary was believed to be ‘very high relative to our income’.”
Dr Fraser was invited to a meeting on January 24, 2020, and she was told that the PCC had voted to make the post of director of music redundant.
The tribunal heard that an anonymous donor had offered to fund the musician’s post, but the church had turned them down .
In February 2020, Dr Fraser raised a grievance about her treatment and alleged that there was no prior discussion to indicate that her post was at risk before the decision was taken. She appealed the decision to dismiss her.
The judge ruled that not all of the parish church could see “the type and style of the music which is [Dr Fraser’s] specialty as of inherent value”.
However, she said that the decision appeared to have had consequences for the church’s congregation size.
“[Dr Fraser’s] supporters would no doubt argue passionately, as they did in the hearing before us, that the tradition at St Peters needs to be respected and that there was a risk that parishioners and their giving would move away if the director of music was not held by a professional.
“There are also a number of letters from people in the community to that effect.”
The judge noted that the congregation size had fallen, and that this was not just because of Covid.
Upholding her claims of unfair dismissal the tribunal ruled her sacking was “manifestly unfair in all the circumstances”.
The tribunal report stated: “The only consideration by the PCC of whether or not the post should be made redundant was on 23 January 2020.”
It added: “They decided on that date that the post should be made redundant.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
The tribunal also found that if a fair dismissal process had been followed, there would have been a 40% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed by reason of redundancy.
It therefore decided that a 40% deduction should be made from Dr Frazer’s compensation to take account of that chance.
