Union representative dismissed after relationship breakdown: victimisation and unfair dismissal
A PE teacher and union rep was unfairly dismissed after a breakdown in relationships with school leadership. The tribunal found her suspension and dismissal were acts of victimisation, but reduced compensation by 50% for her own conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #unfair-dismissal
- #breakdown-in-relationships
- #union-representative
- #covid-19-risk-assessment
- #suspension
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a PE teacher and union representative.
- She sent an inaccurate email about part-time directed hours to all staff.
- The head teacher corrected the error in a staff meeting, which upset the claimant.
- The claimant was suspended on 1 October 2020 and later dismissed on 31 December 2021.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's reference to seeking advice from an Equality Officer influenced the suspension.
- The dismissal was due to a breakdown in relationships, partly caused by the claimant's grievance and public campaign.
Timeline
-
Claimant sends inaccurate email
The claimant, as union rep, emailed all staff with inaccurate information about part-time directed hours.
-
Head teacher corrects email at staff meeting
Mr Fell told staff to disregard the claimant's email, causing her upset.
-
Meeting between claimant and head teacher
The claimant accused Mr Fell of bullying; Mr Fell described her as 'rather aggressive'.
-
Claimant's email referencing Equality Officer
The claimant wrote to Mr Fell saying she would seek advice from an NEU Equality Officer.
-
Claimant suspended
Mr Fell suspended the claimant, citing a breakdown in trust and confidence.
-
Claimant raises grievance
The claimant submitted a grievance alleging race discrimination and other issues.
-
Disciplinary hearing concludes
The disciplinary panel issued a written warning; suspension ended.
-
Reintegration meeting
Mr Weston met the claimant to discuss return to work; she expressed willingness but he found her lacking insight.
-
Dismissal decision
Mr Weston decided to dismiss the claimant due to irretrievable breakdown in relationships.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment ended with notice.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to direct race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. It found victimisation in the suspension and dismissal, but not race discrimination or harassment.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of victimisation and unfair dismissal, but dismissed her claims of direct race discrimination and harassment.
Key reasons:
- The suspension was influenced by the claimant's reference to seeking advice from an NEU Equality Officer, which was a protected act.
- The dismissal was also tainted by victimisation, as the breakdown in relationships was partly caused by the claimant's grievance and public campaign.
- However, the claimant's own conduct, including sending an inaccurate email and the way she raised concerns, contributed 50% to the dismissal.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,448.00
- Compensatory award: £19,556.96
- Total: £22,004.96 (reduced by 50% for contributory fault)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are a union representative, raising concerns about discrimination or health and safety is a protected act, but your employer must not treat you less favourably because of it.
- A breakdown in relationships can be a fair reason for dismissal, but the employer must show it was genuinely irreparable and not caused by their own actions.
- Your own conduct before dismissal can reduce compensation significantly, even if the dismissal is found to be unfair.
- Suspension should not be used as a knee-jerk reaction when an employee raises a grievance or protected act.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks employers face when they allow a personal conflict to escalate into a dismissal, particularly when the employee has raised protected concerns. The PE teacher and union representative had a difficult relationship with the head teacher after she sent an inaccurate email about working hours. The head teacher corrected her in a staff meeting, which she felt was bullying. When she later mentioned seeking advice from an NEU Equality Officer, she was suspended the next day.
The tribunal found that the reference to the Equality Officer was a protected act, and it influenced the decision to suspend her. The subsequent dismissal for a breakdown in relationships was also tainted by victimisation, because the breakdown was partly caused by the claimant's legitimate grievance and public campaign.
What the losing side could have done differently
The trust could have handled the situation better by addressing the initial email error informally, rather than correcting the claimant publicly. They should have taken her grievance seriously and attempted mediation before jumping to suspension. The suspension itself was premature and appeared retaliatory. A proper investigation into the relationship breakdown, with an open mind to rebuilding trust, might have avoided the dismissal altogether.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employers cannot use a 'breakdown in relationships' as a cover for victimisation. Even where the employee's conduct has contributed to the breakdown, the employer must ensure that the decision to dismiss is not influenced by the employee having done something protected, like seeking advice from a union equality officer. The 50% reduction for contributory fault shows that employees can still face consequences for their own behaviour, but the core principle remains: victimisation is unlawful.
Similar cases
Warehouse operative dismissed for racist remark: all claims fail
A former Tesco warehouse operative who was dismissed for making a racist remark and sending threatening messages has lost his claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, and holiday pay.
Healthcare consultant dismissed for gross misconduct after customer complaints: race discrimination claims rejected
A healthcare consultant with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct following four customer complaints about his attitude. The tribunal also rejected his claims of race discrimination and victimisation.
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.