Providing an invaluable lesson on the disciplinary process for those who teach

Any employee dismissed in a manner that is clearly unfair is bound to feel aggrieved in the same way Paula did when she was fired from her job at an adult education centre.

The tutor was sacked after allegations of poor teaching methods and unprofessional interactions with students were upheld and found to amount to gross misconduct following a disciplinary hearing. She denied all of the allegations.

Paula was shocked by the disciplinary outcome, which brought to an end her eight-year tenure at the higher education centre. She felt the allegations had come out of the blue and were grossly unfair.

It was why she was convinced the decision to terminate her contract amounted to an unfair dismissal.

Paula had been unhappy in her role for quite a while and was thinking of leaving her employer but, of course, she always wanted to do so on her terms. So she wanted to challenge the dismissal, but did not want to be reinstated.

Aggrieved Paula contacted our Employee Support Centre to learn more about her options in the situation.

When she spoke to our representative she made it absolutely clear she did not want her job back, so wanted to discuss what else she could do in the circumstances.

Paula’s overriding concern was that the dismissal would severely harm her chances of being able to secure a new job.

Our representative discussed a settlement agreement with Paula, which she believed would be the ideal resolution.

A settlement agreement is a legally binding contract between an employee and an employer.  It typically includes a severance payment (also known as an ex gratia payment or termination payment) made by the employer.

To help Paula challenge the decision, our representative submitted a disciplinary appeal on her behalf.

Based on his review of the case, the grounds for appeal included that the process used was flawed and unjust and the outcome amounted to an unfair dismissal.

Our representative felt the so-called allegations were actually performance concerns and should have been addressed using a performance management process.

In his discussions with Paula she said she was unsure if her employer actually had a specific performance management process.

Our representative, prior to the disciplinary appeal hearing, requested clarification from the employer on if it had a policy to manage performance concerns. 

The employer provided a copy of its capability procedure, which was its established policy to address poor performance.

Our representative after reviewing the policy and the evidence used to support the allegations against Paula, and decision to dismiss her, was confident he could argue the disciplinary process and outcome were both unfair.

In a comprehensive and robust presentation of the appeal case, our representative asserted the decision to dismiss Paula was unreasonable.

Key in what he said was that the disciplinary process was incorrectly used in response to what were clearly performance concerns, and not acts of gross misconduct.

He highlighted the distinct difference in performance concerns and gross misconduct, pointing out that performance concerns focus on if the job is being done properly and quality of work while gross misconduct is extremely serious misconduct.

Our representative maintained that in accordance with the employer’s capability procedure, the apparent allegations were clearly performance concerns.

He pointed out that under the policy, and in the first instance an informal and supportive approach should have been taken to address the matters.

Our representative referred to the evidence to maintain and highlight such an approach was not taken, and to assert it was why the decision to dismiss Paula was unfair.

The disciplinary appeal hearing chair listened to what was a thorough appeal case presented by our representative, asked some clarification questions and enquired what Paula wanted as an outcome.

It was made clear she did not want her job back and explained why. This led to a brief conversation about a settlement agreement, and a discussion about it took place after the hearing.

After some later discussions and negotiations a settlement was later reached, which Paula was delighted with. 

Any employee dismissed in a manner that is clearly unfair is bound to feel aggrieved in the same way Paula did when she was fired from her job at an adult education centre.

The tutor was sacked after allegations of poor teaching methods and unprofessional interactions with students were upheld and found to amount to gross misconduct following a disciplinary hearing. She denied all of the allegations.

Paula was shocked by the disciplinary outcome, which brought to an end her eight-year tenure at the higher education centre. She felt the allegations had come out of the blue and were grossly unfair.

It was why she was convinced the decision to terminate her contract amounted to an unfair dismissal.

Paula had been unhappy in her role for quite a while and was thinking of leaving her employer but, of course, she always wanted to do so on her terms. So she wanted to challenge the dismissal, but did not want to be reinstated.

Aggrieved Paula contacted our Employee Support Centre to learn more about her options in the situation.

When she spoke to our representative she made it absolutely clear she did not want her job back, so wanted to discuss what else she could do in the circumstances.

Paula’s overriding concern was that the dismissal would severely harm her chances of being able to secure a new job.

Our representative discussed a settlement agreement with Paula, which she believed would be the ideal resolution.

A settlement agreement is a legally binding contract between an employee and an employer.  It typically includes a severance payment (also known as an ex gratia payment or termination payment) made by the employer.

To help Paula challenge the decision, our representative submitted a disciplinary appeal on her behalf.

Based on his review of the case, the grounds for appeal included that the process used was flawed and unjust and the outcome amounted to an unfair dismissal.

Our representative felt the so-called allegations were actually performance concerns and should have been addressed using a performance management process.

In his discussions with Paula she said she was unsure if her employer actually had a specific performance management process.

Our representative, prior to the disciplinary appeal hearing, requested clarification from the employer on if it had a policy to manage performance concerns. 

The employer provided a copy of its capability procedure, which was its established policy to address poor performance.

Our representative after reviewing the policy and the evidence used to support the allegations against Paula, and decision to dismiss her, was confident he could argue the disciplinary process and outcome were both unfair.

In a comprehensive and robust presentation of the appeal case, our representative asserted the decision to dismiss Paula was unreasonable.

Key in what he said was that the disciplinary process was incorrectly used in response to what were clearly performance concerns, and not acts of gross misconduct.

He highlighted the distinct difference in performance concerns and gross misconduct, pointing out that performance concerns focus on if the job is being done properly and quality of work while gross misconduct is extremely serious misconduct.

Our representative maintained that in accordance with the employer’s capability procedure, the apparent allegations were clearly performance concerns.

He pointed out that under the policy, and in the first instance an informal and supportive approach should have been taken to address the matters.

Our representative referred to the evidence to maintain and highlight such an approach was not taken, and to assert it was why the decision to dismiss Paula was unfair.

The disciplinary appeal hearing chair listened to what was a thorough appeal case presented by our representative, asked some clarification questions and enquired what Paula wanted as an outcome.

It was made clear she did not want her job back and explained why. This led to a brief conversation about a settlement agreement, and a discussion about it took place after the hearing.

After some later discussions and negotiations a settlement was later reached, which Paula was delighted with.