(Un)fairly dismissed for breach of confidentiality

Acting like schoolchildren

Carol Hill was a dinner lady at Great Tey Primary School. One lunchtime she witnessed some pupils tie a young child called Chloe to a fence and whip her with a skipping rope. Thinking that the school had informed her parents about this, Mrs Hill saw no problem in mentioning it to them in passing. It turned out they had only been told a “minor incident occurred”.

Give me the details

So she told them what she knew and they then took the matter up with the head teacher, Mrs Crabb. Realising that somebody must have disclosed information to them, she asked how they had found out. They explained it came from Mrs Hill and they had no complaints whatsoever about her actions.

Breach of confidentiality

However, Mrs Crabb was none too pleased. She summoned Mrs Hill to her office whereupon she was immediately suspended. On hearing this, Chloe’s parents got in touch with the local press and the story got out. This went against Mrs Hill too, and in August 2009 she was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Why gross misconduct?

The reasons given were that she had: (1) breached confidentiality; (2) spoken to the press and parents without authority; (3) brought the school into disrepute; and (4) made threatening remarks to the head teacher. She denied all of these allegations and appealed. When this was rejected, she issued a claim for unfair dismissal.

Winning employee

The tribunal found firmly in her favour. But this wasn’t because it felt Mrs Hill’s actions were right or that she hadn’t damaged the school’s reputation. So how did the employer lose this one?

Examined. Well, as you might expect, the tribunal paid close attention to its disciplinary procedure and compared it to the voluntary ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures (the Code).

Red pen through the procedure

It ruled that the process used by the school was procedurally unfair because it had “failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into the allegations against the employee”. This meant that the disciplinary and appeal hearings were unfair. The upshot of this was that it allowed Mrs Hill to win her unfair dismissal claim by default. However, if the procedure used had been sound, the case would probably have gone the other way.

Tip 1. This case is only one of a handful that has been decided since the Code came into effect. What’s becoming clear is that the tribunal is playing close attention to the procedures used by employers; any suggestion of unfairness is going to mean a black mark against them.

Tip 2. Go into as much detail as you can during an investigation, even if the evidence supports the employee. This could mean the difference between winning and losing.

Tip 3. If possible, keep anyone who may be involved in the decision-making process away from the investigation. It shows impartiality and their involvement won’t taint the proceedings.