A primary school teacher and trade union representative has been awarded £370,000 after her head teacher unfairly dismissed her in ‘revenge’ for her opposing plans for lesson observations to take place unannounced.
The employment judge in Manchester said Michael Earnshaw, the head teacher of the school in Salford, had been “unlawful, cruel and wrong” to expressly state in references to other schools after she was sacked that Carmen Wood-Hope was a “safeguarding” risk – without substantiation.
Ms Wood-Hope won her claims of automatic unfair dismissal for trade union reasons, detriment suffered on grounds of union activities, and disability discrimination.
Wood-Hope began working for The Friars Primary School in 2014, having qualified in 2011. The tribunal found she was, by all accounts, an accomplished teacher prior to the events of the claim. She was part of the senior leadership team (SLT), leading the school’s liaison and cohesion, with responsibility for relations with parents and staff.
Trade union detriment
Supreme Court: Trade union detriment ‘incompatible’ with human rights
In 2017, she became a representative for the National Union of Teachers, latterly the National Education Union. She applied unsuccessfully to become deputy head. The role was taken by Earnshaw.
In December 2017, Ms Baker, the school’s curriculum lead for English, submitted a grievance about Earnshaw presenting her work to the governors as his own, for ignoring her, and undermining her in front of staff and children.
Wood-Hope attended the grievance meetings as Baker’s union rep. The head teacher at the time, Pat Arnold, upheld Baker’s grievance and Earnshaw had to apologise to her.
Salford protocol
On 24 September 2018, shortly after becoming head teacher, Earnshaw announced to staff that classroom observations would now be conducted unannounced. Union members raised their concerns to Wood-Hope that a collectively negotiated agreement – the “Salford protocol” – on lesson monitoring was being ignored.
At an SLT meeting the following day, she raised their concerns. Wood-Hope came under pressure to say who had concerns, but refused to give names. Earnshaw was determined to proceed with four weeks of observations, without prior warning to staff. His decision had not been discussed with the school’s governors.
The day after, Wood-Hope called a union meeting to feedback on developments. Adam Curtis, deputy head, tried to enter the meeting, claiming he was an NEU member, but she checked and he was refused entry as he was not. The tribunal heard that Curtis stood outside the room, watching who went into the meeting, and that staff felt intimidated.
Later that day, Earnshaw called Wood-Hope to a meeting, with himself and a colleague, Mr Frascatelli. He said he was giving her an “informal warning” for her conduct at the SLT meeting. The tribunal found that no procedure was followed and considered the warning a response to her carrying out trade union duties.
‘Calm down’
After the meeting, Baker overheard Frascatelli raising concerns to Earnshaw about his behaviour at the meeting with Wood-Hope and advising him to “calm down”.
On 27 September, the claimant was signed off sick for two days, her GP having diagnosed that she had suffered a panic attack.
On 3 October, NEU staff voted against Earnshaw’s plans to change classroom observations. An NEU regional officer met with Earnshaw, to explain the basis of the Salford protocol on classroom observations and the need to negotiate and agree any changes.
The tribunal found that Earnshaw was unwilling to entertain any form of compromise, and his intransigence resulted in a ballot for strike action by the staff.
On 17 November, the NEU wrote to the governors about the impasse over classroom observations but received no reply. However, two days later, Earnshaw conceded to a request to conduct week-long observation periods, on five days’ notice.
Governors unaware
Shortly after, Earnshaw reported at a full governors’ meeting the developments with the observation protocol. The tribunal found no record of any mention of the NEU letter, nor the dispute with staff, nor the ballot for strike action. “Indeed, there was no evidence that either matter had been reported to the governing body in any way,” said the judgment.
In March 2019, at an SLT meeting, the Wood-Hope suggested that classes in an open plan area should take lunch at different times in order to limit noise.
Teachers at tribunal
School agrees to pay £850k to teacher with autism, dismissed after serial complaints
Teacher who called pupils ‘chattering monkeys’ loses dismissal claim
Shortly after this, she was accused by a non-SLT colleague of complaining about noise to the SLT. As a result, on 15 March, Wood-Hope complained to Earnshaw about a breach of confidentiality from within the SLT.
Earnshaw went to discuss the matter with the two teachers who worked in the open plan area. He then came back Wood-Hope saying her colleagues had raised several issues about her which would have to be investigated.
He would not tell her what the issues were, nor when the conduct was said to have occurred.
“In effect, Mr Earnshaw turned the matter into a formal investigation into the claimant’s conduct,” said the judgment.
Wood-Hope had a panic attack and attended A&E. From 18 March, the claimant was signed off sick, with work-related stress for three months. On her phased return to work in June, she was assigned planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) duties and supply teaching for the rest of the school year, but Earnshaw said this was not a reflection of her teaching.
Unilateral decision
In September 2019, she had expected to return to teaching a class but Earnshaw unilaterally decided that the claimant would remain on PPA duties for the autumn term. The tribunal found no justification for this decision.
A series of unsubstantiated concerns about Wood-Hope’s performance followed, which led to a nine-week “support plan” for her.
The tribunal found that school sought to suggest, in evidence, that the support plan was “informal”. In an email to the NEU, Earnshaw said that “the claimant is not being subject to professional capability procedures”, but the tribunal concluded Mr Earnshaw’s denial to be disingenuous and his motives highly questionable.
On 18 November 2019, Wood-Hope was signed off work, sick, with work-related stress. She never returned to work at the school.
After over a year of absence reviews, grievance meetings and appeals, the Friars School dismissed Wood-Hope on 10 December 2020. Her notice period ran until 30 April 2021.
Deputy chair of governors Paul Scott wrote to Wood-Hope, saying: “We are satisfied that your manager has undertaken reasonable steps to try and help you to improve and sustain your attendance at work. Therefore, it was explained to you that, regrettably, it was necessary in all the circumstances to terminate your employment.
“The reason for your dismissal is because of persistent and/or excessive absence for sickness, which in law is a reason related to capability or, alternatively is in law, some other substantial reason.”
Wood-Hope appealed her dismissal but this was not upheld.
‘Safeguarding issue’
Following her dismissal, she applied to several teaching agencies for supply work. One rejected, saying that there was a problem with her reference, from the school; another said a reference indicated there may be a “safeguarding issue”.
The tribunal considered the school’s reason for dismissing the claimant for capability, namely her absence. It accepted that Scott’s view was based on the case presented to him – the claimant was merely off work sick with no apparent prospect of a return to work. However, it considered that the position was “not so simple”.
It found that Scott was the “deceived decision maker” because he was presented with limited and selective evidence, wholly influenced and steered by Earnshaw, with key matters of importance and context having been withheld.
The judgment said: “Taking the totality of the circumstances leading to the claimant’s dismissal, the tribunal considered that Mr Earnshaw’s actions and apparent need to control the processes of grievance and dismissal were motivated by the fact that he wanted rid of the claimant.”
Extracting revenge
It considered the dismissal to be “automatically unfair because the principal reason was the claimant’s trade union activities and, as such, the respondents have not shown a potentially fair reason in law.” It also concluded that Wood-Hope had suffered detriment because of her trade union duties.
“Under cross-examination, Mr Earnshaw was unable to explain his actions,” said the judgement. “In the absence of any explanation, the tribunal concluded on a balance of probabilities that Mr Earnshaw was intent on extracting revenge and that his animus to the claimant betrayed him.”
The tribunal added: “The school’s references included, in at least one case, an express indication that the claimant was a ‘safeguarding’ risk but without any substantiation. That was unlawful, cruel and wrong.”
Compensation
The tribunal ordered the respondents, the Governors of the Friars Primary School and Salford City Council, to pay Wood-Hope £370,600 comprising:
- £6,630 for automatic unfair dismissal
- £500 for loss of statutory rights
- £9,670 for loss of earnings due to the application of sick pay
- £95,700 for loss of earnings after her dismissal
- £135 for jobseeking expenses
- £25,000 for injury to feelings
- £10,000 for psychological injury
- £10,000 for aggravated damages
- £48,300 for a 15% uplift for non-compliance with the Acas code of practice
- £66,200 interest
- £122,000 for grossing up for tax.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Education sector HR roles on Personnel Today
Browse more HR jobs in education
