Headteacher dismissed for gross misconduct: school's process was reasonable despite delays
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a headteacher with 10 years' service who was found to have smelled of alcohol and left children unsupervised. The school's investigation, though lengthy, was deemed reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #headteacher
- #whistleblowing
- #alcohol-smell
- #safeguarding
- #delay
- #appeal-rehearing
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Headteacher from 1 September 2010 until dismissal on 25 May 2021.
- On 29 December 2018 an anonymous 23-page cause for concern document was filed against the claimant.
- A serious staff concern document signed by 14 staff members was submitted under the Whistleblowing Policy.
- The allegations included smelling of alcohol, leaving children unsupervised, and disclosing confidential information.
- The disciplinary panel found five allegations fully substantiated and one partially substantiated.
- The claimant's appeal was heard as a rehearing; she left the hearing and it proceeded in her absence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as Headteacher at St Charles RC Primary School.
-
Anonymous complaint received
A 23-page anonymous cause for concern document was filed against the claimant.
-
Claimant informed of complaint
The claimant was telephoned by governor NY and advised of the complaint and potential suspension.
-
Claimant signed off sick
Claimant visited an emergency doctor and was signed off work until 3 July 2019.
-
Suspension letter sent
The respondent sent a letter formally suspending the claimant on full pay pending investigation.
-
Claimant submitted grievance
Claimant submitted a bullying and harassment grievance against investigating officers NY and NMG.
-
First investigatory meeting
First disciplinary investigatory meeting held with the claimant and her union representative.
-
Second investigatory meeting
Second investigatory meeting; new allegation 6 added regarding disclosure of confidential information.
-
Disciplinary hearing started
Disciplinary hearing commenced, held over seven days across March, April, and May 2021.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing held as a rehearing; claimant left and it proceeded in her absence.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision to dismiss for gross misconduct upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the school's investigation and decision to dismiss for misconduct were reasonable, and whether the dismissal was fair under employment law.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the headteacher's claim for unfair dismissal, ruling that the school had acted reasonably.
Key reasons:
- The school genuinely believed the headteacher had committed gross misconduct.
- The investigation, though delayed, was thorough and reasonable.
- The disciplinary panel's findings were supported by evidence.
- The appeal process, conducted as a rehearing, was fair.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure investigations are thorough and documented, even if delays occur, to demonstrate reasonableness.
- A disciplinary process that includes a rehearing on appeal can help address procedural concerns.
- Employees should participate in appeal hearings; leaving early may weaken their case.
- Anonymous complaints can trigger a fair process if investigated properly and corroborated by other evidence.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of a thorough, albeit lengthy, investigation in misconduct cases. The headteacher was suspended in January 2019 after an anonymous complaint and a staff petition. The disciplinary hearing did not conclude until May 2021, and the appeal was heard in May 2022. Despite the delay, the tribunal found the process reasonable because the school took time to gather evidence, hold multiple investigatory meetings, and allow the claimant to respond.
What the school could have done differently
The school could have acted more swiftly, but the tribunal accepted that the complexity of the allegations and the claimant's own grievances contributed to the delay. The school also conducted the appeal as a rehearing, which addressed any earlier procedural issues. The claimant left the appeal hearing early, and it proceeded in her absence — a decision that did not help her case.
Why the result matters
This case reassures employers that a fair process does not have to be perfect or fast. As long as the employer genuinely believes in the misconduct, carries out a reasonable investigation, and follows a fair procedure, dismissal can be upheld. For employees, it shows that even with long service, gross misconduct can justify dismissal, and that engaging fully in the process — including appeals — is crucial.
Similar cases
Headteacher dismissed for tapping her son's hand: unfair dismissal win after 17 years' service
A headteacher with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after tapping her 3-year-old son's hand to get his attention. The tribunal awarded £102,328.80, reduced by 20% for contributory fault.
NHS employee's late amendment to add discrimination claims refused by tribunal
An NHS employee who tried to amend her claim three years after presenting it, adding new disability discrimination and whistleblowing allegations, has been refused by the tribunal due to the balance of hardship favouring the trust.
34-year postman dismissed for intimidating behaviour: fair dismissal upheld
A night shift postman with 34 years of service was fairly dismissed for intimidating a colleague, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims that the process was flawed.
Headteacher unfairly dismissed for engaging a prohibited teacher: flawed investigation and no consideration of alternatives
A headteacher with over five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into his decision to engage a former teacher subject to a Prohibition Order. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider alternatives to dismissal.