Mr A Edwards v Cliff College: 1804160/2023
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 2024 |
| Date | 23 July 2024 |
| Published date | 06 August 2024 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 1804160/2023 |
Case Number: 1804160/2023
1 of 34
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr A Edwards
Respondent: Cliff College
Heard at: SheffieldOn: 28, 29, 30, 31 May and 3,4 and 5 June 2024
Deliberations: In Chambers 15 July 2024
Before: Employment JudgeShepherd
Members: Mr Lannaman
Mr Wilks
Appearances
For the claimant: Mr Phillips, Solicitor Advocate
For the respondent: Ms Mellor, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claim of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed.
2. The claims of direct and indirect religion or belief discrimination are not well-founded
and are dismissed
3. The claims of harassment related to religion or belief are not well-founded and are
dismissed.
REASONS
1. The claimant was represented by Mr Phillips and the respondent was represented
by Ms Mellor.
2. The Tribunal heard evidence from:
Dr Aaron Edwards, the claimant; ;
Reverend Dr Andrew Stobart, Vice Principal;
Reverend Ashley Cooper, Principal;
Case Number: 1804160/2023
2 of 34
Reverend Michaela Youngson , Senior Member of the Methodist Church
Connexional Team.
The Tribunal had sight of a written statement from Dr Gareth Crispin, Lecturer and
Programme Lead. However, the representative agreed that his evidence could be
taken as read as Ms Mellor had no questions for him.
3. The Tribunal had sight of a bundle of documents which, together with documents
added during the course of the hearing, was numbered up to page 722 The Tribunal
considered those documents to which it was referred by the parties.
The issues
4. The issues were identified at a Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge Miller
on 18 September 2023. The parties agreed that these were the issues for this Tribunal
to determine. They were recorded as follows:
1. Unfair dismissal
Reason
1.1. Has the respondent shown the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The
respondent will say that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was conduct,
or some other substantial reason ‘SOSR’.
1.2. The respondent asserts that the SOSR is the Tweet bringing/likely to bring the
respondent into disrepute which significantly breached the respondent’s trust and
confidence in the claimant.
1.3. Was it a potentially fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act
1996?
Fairness
1.4. If so, applying the test of fairness in section 98(4), did the respondent act
reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that reason as a sufficient reason to
dismiss the claimant?
1.5. In respect of misconduct, did the respondent act reasonably in all the
circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant? The
Tribunal will usually decide, in particular, whether:
1.5.1. The respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed
misconduct in that the claimant had breached the social media policy and/or
brought the respondent into disrepute;
1.5.2. There were reasonable grounds for that belief;
1.5.3. At the time the belief was formed the respondent had carried out a
reasonable investigation;
Case Number: 1804160/2023
3 of 34
1.5.4. The respondent followed a reasonably fair procedure;
1.5.5. Dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
Further or alternatively SOSR
1.6. What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The respondent says
the reason was a substantial reason capable of justifying dismissal, namely the
Tweet significantly breached the respondent’s trust and confidence in the claimant,
and it brought the respondent into disrepute.
1.7. Did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a
sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant?
2. Remedy for unfair dismissal.
2.1. The claimant does seek reinstatement.
2.2. Should the Tribunal order reinstatement? The Tribunal will consider in particular
whether reinstatement is practicable and, if the claimant caused or contributed to
dismissal, whether it would be just.
2.3. What basic award is payable to the claimant, if any?
2.4. Would it be just and equitable to reduce the basic award because of any
conduct of the claimant before the dismissal? If so, to what extent?
2.5. Is there a compensatory award, how much should it be?
2.5.1. Polkey: is there a chance that the claimant would have been fairly
dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed or for some other
reason?
2.5.2. If the claimant was unfairly dismissed, did he cause or contribute to
dismissal by blameworthy conduct?
2.5.3. If so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s compensatory
award? By what proportion?
3. Harassment related to Religion and Belief (Equality Act 2010 section 26)
3.1. Did the respondent do the following alleged acts:
3.1.1. The respondent’s tweet of 19 February 2023;
3.1.2. The demand to the claimant to remove the claimant’s tweet by email
from Rev Stobart to the claimant on 19 February 2023;
3.1.3. Suspending the claimant on 20 February 2023;
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations