Back to list

OFSTED inspector unfairly dismissed after touching student – what lessons should employers learn from this case?

After an OFSTED inspector was dismissed for briefly touching a pupil’s head to wipe away some rain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that the dismissal was unfair due to a lack of disciplinary guidance and/or training. Compensation for unfair dismissal will be awarded at a later date.

 

The case (Hewston v OFSTED) highlights how important it is for employers to have set disciplinary guidance as well as training on when what conduct may be deemed gross misconduct in their workplaces, as well as when it may result in summary dismissal. As such conducts will have severe consequences, employees are entitled to be made fully aware of them so to comply with employers’ policies and procedures.

 

Keep reading to find out why the Employment Appeal Tribunal repudiated the decision made by the employment tribunal, and to learn more about why employers should have clear disciplinary rules and training to avoid complications further down the line.

 

Background

 

The case originates with an OFSTED inspector, Mr Hewston, who was visiting a school for an inspection. Mr Hewston, the claimant had worked as an OFSTED Inspector for 12 years and had an unblemished career up until that point.

 

After a group of children came back inside from the rain, the claimant, Mr Hewston, wiped some rain that was dripping down a child’s head and lightly brushed the rain off the top of the child’s shoulder. A teacher who spotted the incident then raised concerns that the behaviour by the inspector was inappropriate.

 

A report that was filed said that as well as one teacher feeling it was inappropriate, the student looked uncomfortable and embarrassed and completed an incident form due to the fact it happened without permission. Following a disciplinary process, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.

 

This decision came despite the respondent (OFSTED) accepting that Mr Hewston had not intended to harm the pupil and that it did not give rise to any safeguarding risks. It was also noted that the claimant had a clean disciplinary record over his 12 years of service.

 

OFSTED had not provided training to staff on what constituted as inappropriate touching, nor did they have disciplinary rules in place which specifically defined what inappropriate touching consisted of.  Prior to the dismissal of the claimant, he was not provided with the complaint of either the student or the school.

 

The dismissal of the claimant led to him filing a claim to the Employment Tribunal for unfair and wrongful dismissal. Mr Hewston stated that he did not believe he had acted unprofessionally, instead stating that “brushing rain from the forehead was professional in  the sense that it was caring”. However, both of the claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.

 

The claimant then appealed in relation to both outcomes. His claim was supported by his trade union, UNISON, who had severe concerns about the implications of the case for their members.

 

Decision

 

The decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the employment tribunal had made several serious errors in relation to both substantive and procedural unfairness.

 

In particular, the tribunal erred when it came to failing to adequately considering the fact that the claimant had not been forewarned that his behaviour in the form of physical contact was tantamount to dismissal from his position.  This forewarning could have come in the form of training or a written policy indicating that physical contact of this sort was not acceptable.

 

The tribunal also made a mistake by failing to recognise that it was a mistake not to provide the claimant with three documents: the text of the school’s complaint, the text of the child’s statement, and an email recording the view of the Local Authority Designated Officer. All three documents were relied upon by the dismissing officer, but only the school’s complaint was provided to Mr Hewston at the appeal stage. According to the EAT, this was enough to render the dismissal procedurally unfair.

 

Finally, the tribunal also failed to take into account whether the respondent had considered the long and unblemished service record of the claimant. The fact that Mr Hewston had relied on this during the disciplinary process means that this represents an oversight by the tribunal itself.

 

The EAT substituted its own judgment for that of the Employment Tribunal’s concluding that if the tribunal had properly directed itself on the law, it would also have found the claimant was unfairly dismissed.

 

Our thoughts

 

This case is a reminder of the importance of following a robust disciplinary process for each misconduct allegation. Employers should not retrospectively enforce self-defined standards or impose disciplinary action without first making employees aware of what the consequences of misconduct are, particularly in this case, where the consequences for the misconduct was dismissal of the employee.

 

With this in mind, the case highlights the need for OFSTED to make clear when the use of touch is inappropriate. It should have provided training to its inspectors or set out clear disciplinary rules which would have made the claimant aware of his responsibilities around the use of touch. These were sorely lacking for an organisation whose inspectors come into contact with children on a regular basis.

 

Nevertheless, employees working with children should be mindful of the consequences of unwarranted and non-consensual physical contact. For teachers and other staff employed by schools, their employer will usually have policies which make it clear whether the use of touch is appropriate. In situations where this is not obvious, employees should err on the side of caution.

 

For more articles like this, subscribe to our newsletter today. 

 

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

 

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

 

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

 

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

Join the Conversation

255 Comments

  5. canadian pharmacy mall [url=https://canadapharmast.online/#]the canadian drugstore[/url] canadian pharmacy online

  7. best canadian pharmacy [url=https://canadapharmast.com/#]vipps approved canadian online pharmacy[/url] canada rx pharmacy world

  18. best online pharmacies in mexico [url=http://mexicandeliverypharma.com/#]best online pharmacies in mexico[/url] medicine in mexico pharmacies

  22. medicine in mexico pharmacies [url=https://mexicandeliverypharma.com/#]mexican mail order pharmacies[/url] mexican drugstore online

  43. buying from online mexican pharmacy [url=https://mexicandeliverypharma.com/#]mexico pharmacies prescription drugs[/url] best online pharmacies in mexico

  46. best online pharmacies in mexico [url=https://mexicandeliverypharma.com/#]mexican pharmaceuticals online[/url] mexican online pharmacies prescription drugs

  50. mexico drug stores pharmacies [url=http://mexicandeliverypharma.com/#]mexico pharmacy[/url] mexican pharmacy

  55. mexican mail order pharmacies [url=https://mexicandeliverypharma.online/#]mexico drug stores pharmacies[/url] mexico drug stores pharmacies

  64. mexican drugstore online [url=http://mexicandeliverypharma.com/#]mexican pharmaceuticals online[/url] buying prescription drugs in mexico

  67. prednisone buying [url=https://prednisonebestprice.pro/#]prednisone generic cost[/url] prednisone for sale no prescription

  71. Abortion pills online [url=http://cytotecbestprice.pro/#]cytotec abortion pill[/url] buy cytotec over the counter

  75. prednisone 50 mg buy [url=http://prednisonebestprice.pro/#]cost of prednisone 40 mg[/url] prednisone daily

  79. tamoxifen bone pain [url=https://nolvadexbestprice.pro/#]tamoxifen premenopausal[/url] tamoxifen rash pictures

  142. Abortion pills online [url=https://cytotec.pro/#]cheapest cytotec[/url] cytotec buy online usa

  145. Misoprostol 200 mg buy online [url=https://cytotec.pro/#]Misoprostol price in pharmacy[/url] cytotec online

  151. tamoxifen estrogen [url=http://tamoxifen.bid/#]buy tamoxifen online[/url] tamoxifen and weight loss

  157. generic lipitor prices [url=http://lipitor.guru/#]Atorvastatin 20 mg buy online[/url] cost of lipitor 10 mg

  175. adderall canadian pharmacy [url=https://easyrxcanada.online/#]my canadian pharmacy[/url] canada ed drugs

  179. india online pharmacy [url=https://easyrxindia.shop/#]online pharmacy india[/url] top online pharmacy india

  183. indian pharmacy paypal [url=http://easyrxindia.com/#]online shopping pharmacy india[/url] top 10 pharmacies in india

  241. world pharmacy india [url=https://indianpharmacy.company/#]pharmacy website india[/url] Online medicine order

  245. reputable indian online pharmacy [url=https://indianpharmacy.company/#]buy prescription drugs from india[/url] п»їlegitimate online pharmacies india

  248. best online pharmacy india [url=https://indianpharmacy.company/#]reputable indian pharmacies[/url] indian pharmacy

  251. Cialis Oral Jelly [url=https://pharmbig24.com/#]karns grocery store have a pharmacy?[/url] pharmacy support viagra

  255. mexico drug stores pharmacies [url=http://mexicopharmacy.cheap/#]pharmacies in mexico that ship to usa[/url] mexico drug stores pharmacies

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Enquire Now
Recent Posts