Mrs T Stevens v The Governing Body of Holy Cross Church of England Primary School: 2300103/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The correct name for the Respondent is the Governing Body of Holy Cross Church of England Primary School.[2]The claim for constructive unfair dismissal is dismissed.REASONS
[1]This was a claim for constructive unfair dismissal. At the start of the hearing, it was clarified that the correct name of the (only) Respondent is The Governing Body of Holy Cross Church of England Primary School.[2]The issue in the case was therefore whether the Respondent acted in a such a way as to amount to a fundamental breach of contract, entitling the Claimant to resign without delay. The relevant term of the contract was the implied term of trust and confidence.[3]I heard evidence from the Claimant and, for the Respondent, from Cathy Dart (Head Teacher) and Claire Gooch (School Secretary).Findings of fact
[4]The Claimant started working for Essex County Council in August 2001. She had a career break in 2007, when she and her husband adopted their children. Her work for the council was as a finance officer.[5]She joined the Holy Cross Church of England Primary School as Bursar on 23 April 2018. She worked 20 hours per week over four days (9.30 to 2.30), although there was some flexibility in her hours. She told me that from time to time she worked five days per week.[6]Mrs Dart said in evidence, which I accept, that the Claimant was provided with a lot of support and training. She also said that there was a number of problems with the Claimant’s work from time to time, such as unpaid invoices, and there was a backlog of work.[7]At the end of October 2018, Mrs Dart asked for a search to be undertaken of the Claimant’s use of the internet. This arose from her concerns about how the Claimant was spending her time. The resulting report for the previous 30 days suggested extensive usage of non work-related sites.[8]The School had an IT Acceptable Use Policy. The Claimant said she had not received this, although Mrs Dart said she had been given it. This Policy restricted non work-related internet usage and the Claimant told me that this contrasted with her previous experience at the council. However, it seems to me - as a matter of common sense - that an employee should reasonably expect that their employer would not want them spending their working time looking at websites that were not connected with their work.[9]Mrs Dart decided to schedule an investigation meeting on 9 November. This was a reasonable decision for her to make, given the contents of the report. On Friday 2 November, as the Claimant was leaving school, she was handed a letter inviting her to that meeting. It referred to allegations of misuse of the school’s computer system and internet access. The letter referred to the right to be accompanied and to a counselling service. It did not suggest that any conclusion had been reached.[10]The Claimant was understandably very upset by this letter and went back into the school to see Mrs Dart. She asked what was going on. At this stage, recollections of the meeting differ. The Claimant says she asked Mrs Dart rather flippantly if she was going to sack her, to which the reply was that this would indeed be the probable outcome. When the Claimant asked whether that really was the likely outcome, Mrs Dart confirmed that it was. The Claimant gave evidence that she was told that it did not matter what she said or did, because the meeting would end with her dismissal. When the Claimant said she could not come to work the next week, knowing that she would be dismissed, Mrs Dart told her that she needed to do what she needed to do, which the Claimant took as an encouragement to resign.[11]In contrast, Mrs Dart denied that she told the Claimant she would be dismissed. Her evidence was that, at that stage, she could not say what would be the outcome of the investigation meeting and she kept repeating that. She described the Claimant as being really upset. When the Claimant said it would be difficult for her to come to work the following Monday, Mrs Dart acknowledged this and said she should go home and decide whether to come into work or not.[12]Mrs Dart was supported in her evidence by Ms Gooch, who was working in the office next door. She saw how upset the Claimant was and heard Mrs Dart saying a number of times that she did not know what would happen and it would all be discussed at the meeting. She did not hear Mrs Dart saying anything about dismissal.[13]On balance, I prefer Mrs Dart’s version of events. I find that it is likely that the Claimant, who was very upset, did feel that her job was at risk, but that arose from her reading of the letter. I do not find that Mrs Dart actually told her she would be dismissed and I find it very unlikely that she would have told the Claimant that her dismissal was certain in circumstances where it was not certain at all. After all, the disciplinary process had not even started at this point; the Claimant had simply been given a letter inviting her to an investigation meeting. Mrs Dart did not know what the outcome would be and, in any event, the decision to dismiss was for the governors to make.[14]Over the weekend, the Claimant wrote a letter of resignation and, when she came to work on 5 November, she spoke to Mrs Dart again and then handed the letter to her. However it is clear that the decision to resign was made before that brief meeting.[15]Subsequently, the Respondent wrote to the Claimant on 7 November and again on 14 November explaining that the Claimant had never been told she would be dismissed and setting out the School’s position. The letter of 7 November asked the Claimant to consider retracting her resignation, but that did not happen. The Claimant did not, for example, bring a grievance instead.[16]I have been taken to examples of the internet use by the Claimant that was the subject of the report and there was extensive evidence of searches of non workrealted sites, some of which coincided with the timings of rest breaks, but much of which did not. To the extent it is relevant, I accept the Claimant’s evidence that those websites that concerned job searches were for her husband’s benefit and did not indicate that she was looking for another job herself. Submissions[17]I heard submissions from Mr Piddington and from the Claimant, which I need not set out.Conclusions
[18]This case turns on what the Claimant was told at the impromptu meeting on 2 November. Given that I have found that Mrs Dart did not tell the Claimant that she would be dismissed, it follows that I do not think that the Claimant resigned in response to anything that the Respondent had done wrong. At the point at which she resigned, the outcome of the investigation meeting and any disciplinary process was unknown. The Claimant obviously remained very upset after that meeting and perhaps convinced herself that dismissal was inevitable, but that was not the case and that was not what she had been told.[19]In other words, there was no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, fundamental or otherwise and the claim for unfair constructive dismissal is therefore dismissed.