Mrs D Richardson-Webb v The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland: 4106889/2020
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2021 |
| Citation | 4106889/2020 |
| Published date | 07 September 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4106889/2020
Held in Glasgow by CVP on 23, 24, 25 and 30 March 2021
Employment Judge: Rory McPherson
10
Mrs D Richardson-Webb
15
The Royal Conservatoire
of Scotland
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
25
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s claim for Unfair
Dismissal does not succeed.
REASONS
Introduction
30
Preliminary Procedure
1. The claimant presented her ET1 on 29 October 2020 following referral to
ACAS Early Conciliation Wednesday 2 September 2020 and issue of
certificate Tuesday 29 September 2020. The ET3 was submitted timeously
35
on Wednesday 2 December 2020.
Respondent
Represented by
G Mitchell
Solicitor
Claimant
Represented by
A Stobart
Counsel
4106889/2020 Page 2
2. This Final Hearing was appointed to take place by CVP following initial
consideration notified to the parties by letter Saturday 12 December 2020 and
Case Management Order Tuesday 15 December 2020.
3. The claim is one of unfair dismissal, the respondent admits the dismissal and
asserted in the ET3 that it was due to gross misconduct/misconduct.
5
4. It agreed at the outset that the hearing would consider the merits only, with
the issue of remedy, if any, being reserved.
5. The Tribunal heard evidence over 4 days from the claimant, Ms Lea
Franchetti the claimant’s TU EIS representative, Ms Jackie Russell the
respondent’s Director of Human Resources, Dr Lois Fitch, the respondent’s
10
Assistant Principal and Professor Jeffrey Sharkey, the respondent’s Principal.
In advance of the evidential hearing, a statement of agreed facts was
provided and is incorporated into the Findings in Fact below.
6. Following the evidential element of the merits hearing, written submissions
were provided.
15
Unfair Dismissal
7. The claim is one of Unfair Dismissal, the respondent admits the dismissal
and alleges that it was due to gross misconduct, the issues for the Tribunal
include:
20
a. What was the principal reason for dismissal and was it a potentially fair
one in accordance with Sections 98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights
Act 1996 (ERA 1996)? The respondent asserts that it was a conduct
dismissal.
25
b. Was the dismissal fair or unfair in accordance with Section 98(4) ERA?
4106889/2020 Page 3
c. Was the decision to dismiss a sanction within the "band of reasonable
responses" for a reasonable employer?
Remedy for unfair dismissal
8. If the claimant was unfairly dismissed and the remedy is compensation:
5
a. If the dismissal was procedurally unfair, what adjustment, if any, should
be made to any compensatory award to reflect the possibility that the
claimant would have been dismissed had a fair and reasonable procedure
been followed? Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
(Polkey).
10
b. Would it be just and equitable to reduce the amount of the claimant's basic
award because of any blameworthy or culpable conduct before the
dismissal, pursuant to Section 122(2) ERA 1996; and if so to what extent?
c. Did the claimant, by blameworthy or culpable actions, cause or contribute
15
to the dismissal to any extent; and if so, by what proportion, if at all, would
it be just and equitable to reduce the amount of any compensatory award,
pursuant to Section 123(6) ERA 1996?
Findings in fact
20
9. The Claimant's career started as a Drama Teacher in 1983. The Claimant
commenced employment with the Respondent in August 1995. The
Claimant "envisioned and designed" the "BA Hons Contemporary Theatre
Practice" course through to its validation in 1998. In 2009, the course
changed its name to "Contemporary Performance Practice" (the CPP
25
course). The claimant continued to lead the course until 2020.
10. CPP was a small course with around 20 students in each year.
To continue reading
Request your trial