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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #headteacher
- #prohibition-order
- #safeguarding
- #recruitment-procedures
- #reputational-risk
- #flawed-investigation
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant was headteacher of Northwood Community Primary School from 1 September 2014 until his dismissal on 10 March 2020.
- He engaged a former music teacher subject to a Prohibition Order (CXH) to assist the school's music teacher from 7 March to 3 April 2019.
- The claimant contacted the Teaching Regulation Authority and was told CXH could work if supervised at all times.
- CXH was supervised at all times and wore a red lanyard indicating no DBS check.
- The disciplinary panel found two of five allegations proved: failing to apply recruitment procedures and failing to consider reputational risk.
- The tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the employer did not consider alternatives to dismissal, making the dismissal unfair.
Timeline
-
Claimant started as headteacher
Mr J Hollywood commenced employment as headteacher of Northwood Community Primary School.
-
CXH first discussed
CXH met the claimant and Chair of Governors Paul Stanton; Stanton advised against sponsoring CXH.
-
Music teacher ES developed throat problem
ES had laryngitis; claimant proposed engaging CXH to assist.
-
CXH began working at school
CXH assisted ES in music sessions, supervised at all times, until 3 April 2019.
-
ES discovered CXH's Prohibition Order
ES googled CXH and found details of his Prohibition Order.
-
Matter reported to Chair of Governors
Sam Battison reported CXH's engagement to Liz Collins.
-
Claimant asked to work from home
LC asked claimant to work from home pending investigation.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant suspended on full pay; allegations included failing to follow procedures and bullying.
-
Disciplinary hearing began
Held on 3 and 10 February 2020; panel chaired by Paul Cain.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant received letter confirming dismissal for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant dismissed without notice.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard on 16 and 21 July 2020; dismissed.
-
Tribunal hearing
Substantive hearing on liability held over 5 days.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction of wages.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the headteacher was unfairly dismissed for conduct, specifically whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing him for failing to follow recruitment procedures and failing to consider reputational risk when engaging a teacher subject to a Prohibition Order.
The outcome
The tribunal found the headteacher was unfairly dismissed. The investigation was flawed because it did not properly consider the claimant's explanation that he had sought advice from the Teaching Regulation Authority and had ensured the teacher was supervised at all times. The employer also failed to consider alternatives to dismissal, such as a final written warning, despite the claimant's long service and unblemished record.
The tribunal also upheld claims for wrongful dismissal (breach of contract for dismissing without notice) and unlawful deduction of wages (a shortfall in salary of £151.51).
Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing. The claimant has expressed a wish to be reinstated or re-engaged.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct a thorough and balanced investigation, considering the employee's explanations and any mitigating factors, before deciding to dismiss.
- Alternatives to dismissal, such as a final written warning, should be considered, especially for long-serving employees with a clean disciplinary record.
- Seeking advice from a regulatory body and acting on it can be a strong defence for an employee accused of failing to follow procedures.
- A flawed investigation can render a dismissal unfair even if the employer genuinely believed the employee was guilty of misconduct.
A headteacher's decision to help a music teacher leads to dismissal
This case shows how a well-intentioned decision can spiral into a dismissal when an employer's investigation is not thorough. The headteacher, with over five years' service, engaged a former music teacher who was subject to a Prohibition Order to assist the school's music teacher who had a throat problem. The headteacher had contacted the Teaching Regulation Authority and was told the teacher could work if supervised at all times, which he ensured. Despite this, the disciplinary panel found he failed to apply recruitment procedures and failed to consider reputational risk.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that the investigation was flawed because it did not properly consider the headteacher's explanation or the fact that he had sought and followed advice from the regulatory body. The employer also failed to consider alternatives to dismissal, such as a final written warning, which would have been a reasonable response given the headteacher's long service and unblemished record. The tribunal noted that the employer's decision fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of a fair investigation and the need for employers to consider alternatives to dismissal, especially for long-serving employees. It also shows that employees who seek and follow regulatory advice may have a strong defence against allegations of failing to follow procedures. For anyone considering a similar claim, this case underscores that a flawed investigation can make a dismissal unfair, even if the employer genuinely believed the employee was guilty of misconduct.
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.
Course leader dismissed after 23 years: flawed investigation leads to £53k award
A tribunal found that New City College unfairly dismissed a course leader with 23 years' service after a flawed investigation into misconduct during the pandemic. The claimant was awarded £53,256.95 including a 20% ACAS uplift.
Dismissed on a council report alone: care home deputy manager wins unfair dismissal claim
A deputy manager with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied solely on a council safeguarding report without conducting its own investigation or disciplinary hearing. The Watford tribunal awarded £26,926.
Office manager dismissed after flawed investigation: loss of trust and confidence
A Reading tribunal found that Bartco Ltd unfairly dismissed its office manager after a flawed investigation and pre-determined decision, awarding £11,932.17.