EDUCATION failed to take formal disciplinary action against Jane Stephens soon enough. Much testimony at the employment tribunal hearing related to her conduct and capability.
Despite this, the department maintained that she had been sacked for ’some other substantial reason’.
Testimony had sought to reveal many significant examples of Mrs Stephens’ alleged misconduct and Education had drawn on these over a 10-year period.
The hearing heard how the deputy director had demanded Mrs Stephens be sacked while the director, Derek Neale, accused her of dereliction of duty.
‘The Education Department had at its disposal both conduct and capability procedures yet decided not to use these, not even at the initial stage of a formal oral warning,’ said panel chairman Peter Woodward.
Education wanted to illustrate a long embedded problem.
‘However, in the opinion of the tribunal this reinforces the strong perception that senior management failed to act effectively when it could have done so,’ said Mr Woodward.
‘Repeatedly we were given testimony as to ﾓconcerns being raisedﾔ, but the stance of management seems to have remained that of hoping for better times and to rely on informal counselling.’
Even alleged serious inappropriate behaviour towards department educational psychologist Sheila Hayward, which was evident by 2003, was not dealt with by an appropriate disciplinary measure.
Neither was the issue of alleged inappropriate behaviour by Mrs Stephens during project meetings addressed.
‘If the testimony is a true reflection of what occurred, then the tribunal formed the view that a reasonable employer might have found this behaviour unacceptable with an employee of far more junior status than Mrs Stephens.’
The tribunal concluded that by not engaging disciplinary processes at an early enough stage to communicate the gravity of the situation, but still allow time for improvement, the department had failed to act.
The tribunal noted from Mr Neale’s testimony that he feared that engaging formal procedures ran the risk of the issue going into the public domain. It seemed he had been unreasonably hesitant to instigate proceedings for fear of media interest.
‘It is the opinion of the tribunal that a reasonable employer would not have allowed matters to drift over a period of years and that there was a failure to call Mrs Stephens to account for any alleged serious misconduct.’
Education development plan director Derek Bridel told the hearing there were serious concerns over Mrs Stephens’ ability to manage a school with a larger staff and a significantly increased educational scope.
The tribunal did not doubt Mrs Stephens’ unswerving dedication to her pupils but, in his testimony, head of school and education services John Lamb had alluded to her reduced capabilities under stress that were well known by senior Education staff.
‘Notwithstanding this testimony, the respondent ‘Education’ sought to persuade the tribunal that there were no issues of capability in this case, however, given testimony from many senior educational staff and a review of the National Standards for Head Teachers, it is difficult to maintain this view,’ said Mr Woodward.
Mrs Stephens was accused of failing to work as part of a team and unable to deal sensitively with people and resolve conflicts.
The tribunal decided that a reasonable employer might have formally posed a challenge to the applicant on these issues prior to her taking up the post at Le Rondin in September 2005.
The tribunal noted that in June 2004, Mr Neale had indicated at a meeting that he would be willing to enter into capability proceedings with Mrs Stephens if no way forward could be found.
‘The tribunal finds it hard to imagine that Mr Neale, with his many years of experience in senior educational roles, would have raised this subject with four senior officers unless he had in mind specific areas of concern over her capability,’ said Mr Woodward.
‘The tribunal also found it disingenuous of Mrs ‘Jocelyn’ Dorey, a seasoned human resources professional, that she stated she did not know what ﾓcapabilityﾔ meant when raised in this meeting.’
Article posted on 18th April, 2007 - 12.00am
Loading ...
Most Commented: