Headteacher with 18 years' service dismissed for safeguarding failures and misconduct
A headteacher who accepted vouchers without declaring them and breached suspension terms was fairly dismissed. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #safeguarding-failure
- #headteacher-dismissal
- #race-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #gross-misconduct
- #vouchers
- #suspension-breach
Key facts
- The claimant was headteacher from 2010 until dismissal on 19 October 2019.
- Exit interviews in July 2018 revealed staff complaints about bullying and safeguarding concerns.
- The respondent suspended the claimant on 20 July 2018 after LADO involvement.
- An investigation by Daniella Glynn found 17 allegations of misconduct to proceed to a disciplinary hearing.
- The disciplinary panel upheld 11 allegations, including failures in safeguarding, accepting vouchers without declaration, and breaching suspension terms.
- The appeal panel upheld the dismissal, finding no evidence of race discrimination.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working at the respondent as a senior teacher.
-
Became Headteacher
Claimant was appointed Headteacher of Mayville Primary School.
-
Governors' meeting on staff turnover
Meeting discussed high staff turnover; exit interviews were planned.
-
Exit interviews conducted
Mr Harding and Dr Smart conducted exit interviews with departing and current staff.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended following LADO advice due to safeguarding concerns.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended investigation meeting with trade union representative.
-
Disciplinary hearing started
Disciplinary hearing began, lasting three days.
-
Dismissal decision
Claimant was notified of summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed against dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing took place remotely; decision upheld dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the headteacher was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, and whether she had been subjected to direct race discrimination or victimisation. The key question was whether the employer's investigation and decision to dismiss were reasonable in all the circumstances.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that the headteacher was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct.
The key reasons were:
- The employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on a thorough investigation.
- The disciplinary panel reasonably upheld 11 allegations, including failures in safeguarding, accepting vouchers without declaration, and breaching suspension terms.
- The appeal process was fair and upheld the dismissal.
- There was no evidence of race discrimination or victimisation.
No compensation was awarded as the respondent won.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should conduct a thorough investigation before dismissing for gross misconduct, especially for long-serving employees.
- Safeguarding failures in schools are treated very seriously and can justify summary dismissal.
- Accepting gifts or vouchers without declaring them can amount to gross misconduct, even if the value is small.
- Breaching suspension terms, such as contacting witnesses, is a serious disciplinary offence.
- Race discrimination claims require evidence of less favourable treatment because of race; a fair process and reasonable belief in misconduct will defeat such claims.
A long-serving headteacher dismissed for multiple failings
This case shows how even a headteacher with 18 years' service and a strong track record can be fairly dismissed when there are serious concerns about safeguarding and conduct. The tribunal heard that exit interviews in July 2018 revealed staff complaints about bullying and safeguarding issues, leading to suspension and a detailed investigation.
The investigation found 17 allegations of misconduct, of which 11 were upheld by a disciplinary panel. These included failures in safeguarding procedures, accepting vouchers from a supplier without declaring them, and breaching the terms of her suspension by contacting a witness. The panel decided that these amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
What the employer did right
The employer, Urbis Academy Trust, followed a thorough process. It involved the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) from the start, appointed an independent investigator, and gave the headteacher a full opportunity to respond. The disciplinary and appeal panels were properly constituted and considered all evidence. The tribunal noted that the employer's belief in the misconduct was genuine and based on a reasonable investigation.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The headteacher also claimed that she had been subjected to direct race discrimination and victimisation. However, the tribunal found no evidence that her race played any part in the decision to dismiss. The process was applied consistently, and the decision-makers were not motivated by racial considerations. The claim of victimisation also failed because there was no protected act or detrimental treatment linked to it.
What this means for similar cases
This case is a reminder that schools and other employers must take safeguarding concerns seriously and act on them. A fair investigation and disciplinary process will protect the employer from successful unfair dismissal claims, even when the employee has long service. It also highlights that employees in senior roles must comply with all policies, including those on gifts and hospitality, and with suspension terms.
Similar cases
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
Dismissed for gross misconduct: claim struck out as out of time and without merit
A former driver's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospects of success and were submitted late.
Customer assistant dismissed for gross misconduct: fair process despite delays
A Tesco customer assistant with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making racist comments, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of race discrimination and victimisation.
Residential support worker dismissed for attending work with possible COVID-19 symptoms: dismissal fair
A residential support worker was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after attending work while possibly having COVID-19 symptoms. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation.