To continue reading please register or login to your OHW+ account.
In this case, reported by DLA Piper, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures should have been followed in a case where the reason for dismissal was stated to be for "some other substantial reason" (SOSR), but disciplinary proceedings ought to have been invoked.Lund v St Edmund's School, Canterbury
Mr Lund was employed by St Edmund's School, Canterbury, as a teacher from September 1991 until October 2010, when he was dismissed without notice. Prior to his dismissal, Mr Lund had expressed dissatisfaction with the computer equipment provided for use in his teaching, which he eventually decided to dismantle. Mr Lund also refused to allow a consultant who had been engaged to report on his class to observe him teaching.
Shortly after these incidents, Mr Lund was off work for a few days because of stress and, on his return, he was suspended on full pay. During his suspension, Mr Lund had an appointment with a consultant psychiatrist, who concluded that Mr Lund's stress was caused by his frustration with the school's computer equipment. However, he did not have an identifiable medical condition and he was therefore deemed to be fit to return to work.
Despite the psychiatrist's findings, Mr Lund's suspension was not lifted. He was instead invited to attend a meeting where he was handed a letter informing him of his dismissal. The letter explained that his