Mr O Dervis v Haringey London Borough Council and The Governing Body of Tiverton Primary School: 3325526/2019
| Judgment Date | 25 August 2020,06 April 2021 |
| Published date | 29 September 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Case Number: 3325526/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr O Dervis v
(1) Haringey London Borough
Council
(2) The Governing Body of Tiverton
Primary School
Heard at: Watford On
: 20 and 21 August 2020
Before: Employment Judge Hyams, sitting alone
Appearances:
For the claimant: Ms Angela Delbourgo, of counsel
For the respondent: Mr Ben James, of counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal does not succeed: he was not dismissed
unfairly.
REASONS
The claim and the parties
1 In these proceedings, the claimant claims that he was dismissed unfairly, contrary
to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”). The
claimant was dismissed by the first respondent (which is a unitary local authority)
from his post of Site Manager for Tiverton Primary School (“the school”), which is
a community school within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework
Act 1998, maintained by the first respondent within the meaning of that Act. At the
time of the claimant’s dismissal, the school had a delegated budget.
2 The claim was originally made against the first respondent only. However, after I
had drawn the parties’ attention to the Education (Modification of Enactments
Case Number: 3325526/2019
2
Relating to Employment) (England) Order 2003, SI 2003/1964 (“the 2003 Order”)
and section 35 of the Education Act 2002, Ms Delbourgo applied on behalf of the
claimant to add the governing body of the school as a respondent. Mr James was
unable to point to any material disadvantage that would be c aused to the
respondent by my adding the governing body as a party, and, given that factor
and that the 2003 Order required the claim to have been made against the
governing body of the school, I granted the application.
The issues
3 The first respondent’s claimed reason for dismissing the claimant was his conduct.
The claimant asserted that it might have been redundancy, on the basis that the
school at which the claimant worked had since his dismissal been merged with
another one, with the merger taking effect in September 2020. It was the
respondent’s case that the claimant’s dismissal was for his conduct.
4 The issues in the claim of unfair dismissal were accordingly these.
4.1 What was the reason, or principal reason, for the claimant’s dismissal? Was
it (as the respondent claimed) the claimant’s conduct?
4.2 Did the persons responsible for deciding that the claimant should be
dismissed genuinely believe that the claimant had committed that
misconduct?
4.3 Did the respondent conduct a reasonable investigation into the alleged
misconduct of the claimant before deciding that he should be dismissed for
that conduct, i.e. was it (see J Sainsbury plc v Hitt [2003] ICR 111) one which
it was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to
carry out, or was it outside that range?
4.4 Were there reas onable grounds for the belief of whoever decided that the
claimant should be dismissed that the claimant had committed the misconduct
for which he was in fact dismissed?
4.5 Was the c laimant’s dismissal within the range of reasonable responses of a
reasonable employer?
5 I heard oral evidence from the claimant on his own behalf and, on behalf of the
respondent, from (1) Ms Resham Mirza, the Head Teacher of the school, (2) Mr
Alex Dickson, a member of the second respondent, who chaired the disciplinary
panel of three members of the second respondent that decided that the claimant
should be dismissed, (3) Mr Mike Hakata, another member of the second
respondent, who chaired the panel of three members of the second respondent
which heard the claimant’s appeal against his dismissal, and (4) Ms Dankay
Wurie, who is a Human Resources Advisor employed by the first respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial