Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Redmans are specialist unfair dismissal lawyers, representing Claimants and Respondents in the Employment Tribunal.

The case of Boardman v Nugent Care Society concerns the dismissal of a teacher in 2008 for allegedly assaulting (“manhandling”) an unruly pupil at the school she was working at. Her dismissal was found to be fair and not wrongful by the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) but an appeal by the Claimant was allowed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) as the EAT considered the ET had got key facts relating to the alleged manhandling wrong. The case was therefore resubmitted to a different Employment Tribunal for another hearing.

The facts in Boardman v Nugent Care Society & Anor

Mrs Boardman (“the Claimant”) commenced employment with the Nugent Care Society (“the Respondent”) in 1995. She worked as a mathematics teacher at the Clarence High School, an independent school that caters for children who have particular educational, behavioural and emotional problems. The Claimant had an exceptional record at the school prior to her dismissal in 2008.

On 1 February 2008 there was an incident at the school. Mrs Boardman was supervising detention. One of the pupils (“DH”) was unhappy at being kept in detention and started causing problems, including throwing food and attempting to smoke. Mrs Boardman asked him to stop. Mrs Dunn, who was also supervising detention, was upset by DH’s behaviour. She asked to leave and Mrs Boardman gave her permission. However, DH also tried to leave with Mrs Dunn and some “manhandling” of DH occurred. The exact facts of what the “manhandling” entailed and whether it had occurred was disputed. Mrs Dunn, however, complained of the treatment that Mrs Boardman had afforded to DH. The Claimant was suspended on 4 February 2008 and a police and internal investigation was undertaken into the matter. A disciplinary hearing was then held on 25 July 2008 and the Claimant was dismissed on 31 July 2008 for gross misconduct. An appeal panel subsequently confirmed the dismissal and the Claimant submitted claims to the Employment Tribunal of (among others) unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. It considered that the Claimant had been inconsistent in the way she had given evidence to the Tribunal and preferred the evidence of Mrs Dunn. It also believed that the fact that there had been some “manhandling” was undisputed. Further, the (majority of the) Employment Tribunal considered that her dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances (“the Burchell test”).

The Claimant subsequently appealed on five points to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, including that the facts relating to the manhandling were not “undisputed” (and the significance of these), the higher degree of scrutiny afforded to the Claimant’s account, that a reasonable investigation had not been undertaken, and that the Employment Tribunal had erred in applying the Burchell test.

The law relating to unfair dismissal and gross misconduct

Under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 employees have the right not to be unfairly dismissed by their employer. One of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal under s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is “misconduct”. Employees can therefore be fairly dismissed for misconduct. However, whether a particular incident of misconduct warrants the sanction of dismissal is more ambiguous. Whether an employee can be fairly dismissed for an incident of misconduct depends upon:

  1. The nature of the misconduct
  2. How serious the misconduct was; and
  3. Whether this is the employee’s first offence

Certain types of conduct are well recognised as potentially constituting “gross misconduct”. These include theft, dishonesty, violence, disobedience, inebriation or misuse of company property (among others). As well as there being certain categories of easily recognisable offences which constitute gross misconduct the employer may also have disciplinary procedures drawn up which specify what gross misconduct may constitute. Employers should endeavour to draw up an exhaustive list of what is considered to be gross misconduct and that the potential outcome of such misconduct may be dismissal. If there are no rules determining what is to be deemed gross misconduct then dismissal for a first offence will probably be found to be unfair.

The seriousness of the misconduct is also important in determining whether a gross misconduct dismissal may be a fair sanction. However, should the misconduct not be particularly serious then a gross misconduct unfair dismissal may have occurred.

As stated above, employees may be fairly dismissed for their first offence if the misconduct is particularly serious, the rules have stated that that particular conduct will warrant dismissal, or the employee has stated that a warning wouldn’t suffice to change their attitude.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment in Boardman v Nugent Care Society & Anor

The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the five following grounds of appeal:

  1. The ET had erred in finding that the facts relating to the manhandling were not “undisputed”
  2. The (actually) disputed facts were of great significance
  3. The Employment Tribunal had afforded a higher degree of scrutiny afforded to the Claimant’s account
  4. The ET had erred in finding a reasonable investigation had been undertaken; and
  5. The ET had erred when applying the Burchell test.

The Claimant succeeded on the first two points. The EAT considered that the ET couldn’t reasonably be construed to have accepted the fact that there had been manhandling in stating (in the disciplinary hearing) that she had been sacked after 30 years’ experience of teaching “for the throw of a small child”. The majority of the ET found that this constituted a plea in mitigation (and hence a confession) rather than a particular form of denial. The EAT stated that this was an unreasonable conclusion to have come to when the Claimant had, at every other opportunity, denied the fact that she had manhandled DH. The matter was therefore remitted to a different Employment Tribunal to consider the gross misconduct unfair dismissal.

Our specialist unfair dismissal lawyers’ thoughts on Boardman v Nugent Care Society & Anor

Although the Claimant succeeded in her appeal, there is no guarantee that a further Employment Tribunal will find her dismissal to have been unfair. The point that the Claimant succeeded on was that the facts of the manhandling were “disputed” and therefore the Employment Tribunal should consider this in determining whether an unfair dismissal and/or a wrongful dismissal had occurred. Gross misconduct unfair dismissals occur on a frequent basis and if you think that you’ve been unfairly dismissed then you should contact an expert employment lawyer.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog.

Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.52 Average

21 Reviews

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 1 month ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 1 month ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 1 month ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 2 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 2 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 2 months ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 2 months ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 2 months ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 2 months ago