Frame The Governing Body of the Llangiwg Primary School & Anor (UNFAIR DISMISSAL)

An Employment Tribunal gives adequate reasons when its judgment identifies the critical issues and findings, explains the route to its conclusions, and enables the parties and an appellate court to understand why the claim succeeded or failed. It need not address every item of evidence or every argument.

A delayed judgment is not set aside merely because of delay. The appellate court must examine it with particular care, but must identify a material error in recollection or reasoning and be unable to be satisfied that the result was right.

Procedural defects, delay and lengthy suspension matter insofar as they affect the fairness of the dismissal. A defect that causes no prejudice and could not have changed the outcome does not necessarily make the dismissal unfair.

The claimant, a head teacher and special educational needs co-ordinator, was summarily dismissed after disciplinary and appeal processes concerning an unregistered childcare provision, cash handling and special educational needs administration. The Employment Tribunal at Cardiff dismissed her claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal on 26 April 2019.

She appealed, alleging inadequate reasons, failure to consider material evidence, error in treating the matters as misconduct rather than capability, and procedural unfairness arising from delay, suspension and the disciplinary process. She also relied on the six-month interval between the hearing and the Tribunal’s judgment.

The central issue was whether the Tribunal had made a legally sustainable and sufficiently reasoned finding that the dismissal was fair and that the claimant’s conduct justified summary dismissal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal’s reasons were adequate. Its 85-paragraph judgment identified the material issues, made findings on the central disputes and explained why the claimant’s principal case was rejected. A tribunal need not rehearse every item of evidence or answer every argument advanced by a party.

2. The six-month delay in handing down the judgment required particularly careful appellate scrutiny. It did not itself justify setting the judgment aside. Nothing in the judgment showed a material failure of recollection, an overlooked central issue or defective reasoning.

3. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer had reasonably treated the operation of the unregistered Wraparound childcare provision as serious misconduct. It had addressed the claimant’s asserted misunderstanding, her reliance on advice said to have been given by Ms Hire, the alleged responsibility of another employee and the governors’ knowledge. Its conclusion that the claimant was culpable and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses was open to it.

4. The Tribunal correctly treated the relevance of the lengthy suspension and procedural complaints by asking whether they affected the fairness of the dismissal. The serious unresolved allegations justified continued suspension. The claimant had not been prejudiced in answering them. The alleged departures from guidance, absence of witnesses and other technical defects either had good explanations or could not have affected the outcome. Not every procedural defect renders a dismissal unfair.

5. The Tribunal was also entitled to conclude that gross negligence can amount to gross misconduct and that the claimant’s responsibility for the unlawful childcare arrangements and seriously deficient special educational needs administration destroyed mutual trust and confidence. The wrongful-dismissal claim therefore also failed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed; the Employment Tribunal’s dismissal of the unfair- and wrongful-dismissal claims was upheld.

• Employment Tribunal, Cardiff: Claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal dismissed. Judgment entered in the Register and sent to the parties on 26 April 2019.