Ms A Mairs v Trafford Council and The Governing Body of Kings Road Primary School: 2404732/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2023 |
| Date | 20 December 2023 |
| Published date | 12 January 2024 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2404732/2022 |
Case No: 2404732/2022
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms Andrea Mairs
1st Respondent: Trafford Council
2nd Respondent: The Governing Body of Kings Road Primary School
Heard at: Liverpool (in private; by telephone) On: 14,15, 18,19,20,21
September 2023
and 30 October 2023
and in chambers on
21, 22 November 2023
Before: Employment Judge Aspinall
Dr Tirohl
Mrs Roscoe
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Mr Moretin (Counsel)
1st Respondent: Mr Bronze (Counsel)
2nd Respondent: Mr Boyd (Counsel)
Reserved Judgment
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds.
2. The claimant’s complaint of race discrimination by victimisation succeeds.
3. The claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of
contract for the pay due to her during a notice period to 31 August 2022 succeeds.
Background
1. By a Claim Form dated 13 June 2022 the claimant brought a complaint for
unfair dismissal, race discrimination victimisation, breach of contract notice pay
Case No: 2404732/2022
2
and unlawful deduction from wages. The first respondent, The Council, defended
the complaint as did the second respondent, The School, saying it had dismissed
the claimant because of some other substantial reason which was the irretrievable
breakdown the of the relationship between the six members of the Senior
Leadership Team “SLT” at The School and the claimant.
2. There was a case management hearing before Employment Judge Aspinall
on 7 November 2022 and the case came to its final hearing before this Tribunal on
14 September 2023.
The List of Issues
3. The List was agreed between the parties and presented at final hearing as
follows:-
Unfair Dismissal
1. Has the Respondent established a potentially fair reason for the
dismissal as set out in s.98(1) and 98(2) of the Employment Rights
Act 1996?
1.1 Did the Respondent act reasonably in treating that reason as
sufficient reason to dismiss the Claimant bearing in mind all
the circumstances, including the size and administrative
resources of the Respondent, equity, and the substantial
merits of the case?
1.2 On what date did the Claimant’s dismissal take effect? The
Respondent asserts that notice of termination was served on
28 February 2022 and her employment, including notice,
ended on 30 April 2022. The Claimant asserts that notice of
dismissal took effect on the date she had a reasonable
opportunity to read the letter on 1 March 2022.
2.1 What basic award is payable to the claimant, if any?
2.2 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?
2.3 If there is a compensatory award, how much should it be? The
Tribunal will decide:
2.3.1 What financial losses has the dismissal caused the
claimant?
2.3.2 Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace
their lost earnings, for example by looking for another
job?
Case No: 2404732/2022
3
2.3.3 If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be
compensated?
2.3.4 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?
2.3.5 If so, should the claimant’s compensation be reduced?
By how much?
2.3.6 If the claimant was unfairly dismissed did she cause or
contribute to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct?
2.3.7 If so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the
claimant’s compensatory award? By what proportion?
Victimisation
3.1 Did the Claimant do a protected act as follows:
3.1.1 Raise a grievance on 6 October 2019, alleging that members
of the Senior Leadership Team discriminated against her
because of her race or colour?
3.2 If so, did the Claimant give false evidence or information, or make
false allegations in bad faith?
3.3 Did the Respondent do the following things:
3.3.1 carry out an investigation to consider whether the Claimant’s
employment should be terminated due to a breakdown of
trust and confidence?
3.3.2 SLT express that they could no longer work with the Claimant
if she returned to work from her sickness absence?
3.3.3 take into account the Claimant’s protected act when
investigating whether the Claimant’s employment should be
terminated?
3.3.4 Invite the Claimant to a dismissal hearing on 28 January
2022?
3.4 By doing so, did it subject the Claimant to a detriment?
3.5 Did the respondent dismiss the Claimant by letter on 28 February
2022 because she did a protected act.
To continue reading
Request your trial