Action for Children unfairly and constructively dismissed social worker, tribunal finds

Janette Coyle claimed she had been bullied and undermined by her manager at the charity’s Plymouth city centre office

An employment tribunal has ruled that Action for Children unfairly and constructively dismissed an employee who felt she had been bullied by her line manager.

Janette Coyle resigned from her role as a social work lead practitioner at the charity’s Plymouth city centre office in August 2015, after she had been made to work alone in small office with little natural light, which she said provoked anxiety because of an incident in 1997 when she had opened a door and the body of a person who had hanged themselves the day before swung into her.

She also claimed she felt bullied and undermined by her manager, Sally Kendrick, who compared her unfavourably to other staff and complained that Coyle’s team was not working quickly enough, according to the tribunal’s judgment, published last week.

The tribunal hearing took place in January, when the charity argued that Coyle had left because she was struggling with the demands of her role.

Coyle had worked for the charity since July 2014 when the charity took on the contract to run children’s centres in Plymouth, providing safeguarding and support for vulnerable children.

She had worked for the previous contract holder, Keyham Community Partnership, since September 2008 and had transferred to Action for Children when it took over.

The tribunal found the transfer of the contract had created a “significant backlog” of work for Coyle and her team and the charity had failed to resolve the problem a year later.

“The tribunal is satisfied that there was no evidence that the claimant was responsible for such issues,” the judgment said.

Anne Goraj, the tribunal judge, said in her judgment she did not believe that those managing Coyle had been made fully aware of her fear of being in the small space or of the traumatic incident with the body.

The judge said she did not believe Kendrick had deliberately intended to undermine Coyle on a number of occasions, but had been “clumsy and tactless”, which had been upsetting for Coyle, the judgment said.

The tribunal also found Coyle would “reasonably have felt distressed and undermined” by some of Kendrick’s comments.

It concluded that the charity’s management had failed to carry out a proper investigation into Coyle’s allegation of bullying and found she felt she had been shouted at by another manager, Susan Turle, in an investigatory meeting into her performance.

Before she left the organisation Coyle was being investigated over her handling of a difficult and potentially violent family, even though her actions in the situation had won her praise from Plymouth City Council’s welfare and safeguarding officer, according to the judgment.

It said the charity had been right to investigate the issue, but not to open a second investigation into the incident.

When Coyle was signed off sick with work-related stress in June 2015, the charity claimed to have found several problems in her caseload which needed to be investigated and suspended her, although it did not thoroughly explain to the tribunal what the accusations against her were.

The tribunal ruled that Coyle had been unfairly constructively dismissed and awarded her compensation, which will be decided at a later date.

It ordered an additional 20 per cent to be added to the compensation figure to reflect the fact that Coyle had not been subject to a formal disciplinary hearing when she left, had not been given full details of the accusations against her and the issue had been dealt with in an inappropriate way by the charity.

An Action for Children spokesman said: “We do not provide detailed comment on individual cases but can confirm that there was a legal dispute regarding termination of employment that was heard by an employment tribunal. These proceedings were progressed and concluded in July 2017.”

Third Sector was unable to contact Coyle for comment.

Source link

Sacked British Council manager loses employment tribunal case

Angela Gibbins was dismissed from her role as head of global estates in August last year after making comments about the royal family on a Facebook post

A former senior manager at the British Council who was sacked over anti-monarchy comments on a Facebook post that described Prince George as “a f***ing d***head” has lost her employment tribunal claim for wrongful dismissal and discrimination.

Angela Gibbins was dismissed from her £77,800-a-year job as head of global estates at the British Council on 8 August 2016, after comments she had made on Facebook criticising the monarchy and Prince George appeared in The Sun newspaper, causing a backlash against her and the charity.

The Queen is the patron of the British Council, which had an income of £979.6m in the year to 31 March 2016.

An image of Prince George was posted by the band the Dub Pistols on its Facebook page, with the caption “I know he’s only 2 years old, but Prince George already looks like a f***ing d***head”. The band added: “Too much?”

In a discussion with friends underneath the picture, which Gibbins said she believed was visible only to her 150 Facebook friends, Gibbins commented: “White privilege. That cheeky grin is the (already locked-in) innate knowledge that he is royal, rich, advantaged and will never know *any* difficulties or hardships in life. Let’s find photos of 3yo Syrian refugee children and see if they look alike, eh?”

She went on to say she did not hate any human being, but added: “I don’t believe the royal family have any place in a modern democracy, least of all when they live on public money.”

Tribunal papers published last week say it was unclear how the comments came into the public domain, but they might have been passed on by one of Gibbins’ friends or been visible to friends of friends.

The Sun’s initial coverage of the comments failed to make clear that Gibbins herself was not responsible for the obscene remark about Prince George in the picture’s caption, and provoked outrage against the charity and calls for Gibbins to be sacked.

An internal British Council investigation into the incident concluded that Gibbins had, although inadvertently, breached the council’s code of conduct in making the comments and brought the charity into disrepute, according to the tribunal papers.

Gibbins took the charity to tribunal, arguing that she had been discriminated against because of her republican beliefs and had been unfairly or wrongfully dismissed.

But the tribunal, which heard the case in July, rejected her claims, concluding there had been “reckless risk-taking” and “gross misconduct” by Gibbins in posting the comments.

The tribunal document says it concluded Gibbins was seen to have bought the charity into disrepute and sacked not because she expressed a republican belief, but because “she had associated herself with a distasteful and personal attack on a small child”.

The tribunal report says that, although an employer might have chosen to discipline Gibbins without sacking her, no member of the tribunal could say it was unreasonable to dismiss her.

“Clearly the claimant deserves some sympathy for her slip of judgment, but that does not mean the decision was unfair,” the report says.

A British Council spokeswoman said: “While we recognise the difficult nature of this process for all involved, we are pleased that the tribunal has found in our favour in relation to all of the claims. The British Council looks to act with integrity and respect in all that we do to promote the UK and our position in the world.”

Source link

Tribunal overturns Charity Commission name-change order

The regulator had ordered the Cambridge Islamic College to change its name because it was too similar to the nearby Cambridge Muslim College

The charity tribunal has ruled that an Islamic college does not need to change its name, overturning an order issued by the Charity Commission last year.

The tribunal’s decision, which was published this week after a hearing was held last month, said that Cambridge Islamic College should not have to change its name despite a section 42 order issued by the commission.

The Charity Commission had ordered the name change in September last year because of similarities with the existing Cambridge Muslim College, which made a formal complaint to the commission in June 2016.

But the tribunal ruled that the regulator’s order “gave inadequate consideration to a number of important factors” and should be quashed.

It is the first time the tribunal has overturned a Charity Commission order since June 2015.

The Charity Commission said it had concerns about the tribunal’s judgment and was considering an appeal.

The tribunal ruling said the commission ordered Cambridge Islamic College to change its name because it was similar enough to Cambridge Muslim College to give the impression that they were connected, when they were in fact separate organisations.

The commission had also concluded there was evidence of people confusing the two charities, and a likelihood of further confusion and potential financial loss to Cambridge Muslim College if Cambridge Islamic College retained its existing name, the commission decided.

Cambridge Islamic College then appealed the decision to the charity tribunal, although an internal review by the commission concluded in December that the name-change order should stand.

Cambridge Islamic College argued during the tribunal hearing that the words “Islamic” and “Muslim” were both distinct words with different meanings – which differed from the Charity Commission’s ruling that the words were interchangeable – and that the two charities’ objects were sufficiently different.

The tribunal also heard that Cambridge Islamic College feared financial losses would occur after the name change took place.

The tribunal specifically said the regulator’s order did not provide any evidence to back its claim that the words “Islamic” and “Muslim” were interchangeable, and questioned the regulator’s claim that general confusion about the two charities fulfilled a legal test of whether a charity was giving an impression of a relationship to another.

The commission’s original decision also failed to consider the financial impact on Cambridge Islamic College of the name change, the tribunal ruled, and the regulator did not properly carry out a two-stage test as part of the name-change order.

Chris Willis Pickup, head of litigation at the Charity Commission, said: “We have some concerns about the tribunal’s approach to the legal framework for our name-change power, particularly that its narrow interpretation of the legal tests might prevent the commission from acting where there is a genuine issue with a charity’s name.

“We are therefore considering whether to appeal this decision to the upper tribunal to clarify the legal framework.”

Source link

Allotment appeal dismissed by charity tribunal

The Charity Commission was correct in making a scheme to transfer the ownership of land in Buckinghamshire to a charity, the tribunal has ruled

An appeal against two Charity Commission rulings to transfer allotments from a parish council to a charitable trust has been rejected by the charity tribunal.

The claimant in the case said the decision, published last week following a hearing in June, said the decision could affect approximately 800 parishes across the country.

A tribunal’s ruling says that the Charity Commission was correct in ordering allotments owned by Hughenden Parish Council in Buckinghamshire to be transferred to a charity called the Hughenden Community Support Trust.

Pauline Densham, who shares an allotment in Hughenden and who brought the appeal against the Charity Commission’s decision, claimed Hughenden Parish Council was the rightful owner of the 10-acre allotment land and should not have to transfer it to the charity.

Because the council has a statutory duty to provide allotments, according to Densham, it would then be forced to rent the land back from the charity.

The allotments were created following the Enclosure and Improvement of Commons Act 1845, which fenced off and divided up common land, and as part of the act, two parcels of land were awarded to the council in 1855 and 1862 to provide allotments for the labouring poor.

A council clerk registered the allotments as a charity under the name Allotments for Labouring Poor in 1966, a move Densham argued was an error.

Densham said changes to the law introduced by the Local Government Act 1894 backed up the council’s claim to the land.

The charity lay dormant on the register until the council was considering selling part of the plot off in 1994, and a clerk wrote to the Charity Commission to find out what the legal position was.

The commission created a scheme in early November 2015 to transfer the allotments to the charity, following a public consultation in 2014.

The charity’s first trustees were eventually appointed in 2006, but Densham’s appeal argued that these appointments were invalid, as there was no statutory power which could be used to appoint trustees for the charity.

But the tribunal has rejected that the charity and the appointment of trustees are invalid, and has found in favour of the Charity Commission.

Speaking to Third Sector, Densham said: “Following registration, councils will be forced to give up their ownership of the allotments. Individual trustees will be appointed from members of the public, and the ownership of the land will be vested in the Official Custodian for Charities. 

“There will not be a legal requirement for the land to be kept as allotments, and the new trustees will have the freedom to use the land in whatever way they think is best.

“It is thought that, as a result of this decision, more than 1,000 acres of allotment land will be lost and approximately 800 parishes affected.”

Densham also said she would ask for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal against the latest ruling.

Source link

Age UK Knaresborough & District “unfairly dismissed” employee, tribunal finds

An employment tribunal found a former employee of the charity had been unfairly dismissed, but rejected a further claim that she had been wrongfully dismissed.

A Yorkshire Age UK charity has been ordered to pay almost £6,000 for unfairly dismissing a former employee who was accused of financially grooming an elderly couple she met through work.

An employment tribunal in Leeds ordered Age UK Knaresborough & District to pay £5,895 to ex-staff member Mrs L Webber.

The tribunal heard that Webber had become ‘very close’ to the couple, known as Mr and Mrs A, according to tribunal documents. She regularly visited them during her own time and in July last year became a signatory on Mr A’s bank account amid concerns about his health and mobility.

The couples’ cheque book revealed they paid her £200 as a gift, the documents say.

Another couple who were friends of Mr and Mrs A raised concerns with the local authority when they discovered the signatory arrangement.

They accused Webber of financially grooming Mr and Mrs A. Webber immediately contacted the bank asking to be removed as a signatory but when the matter was raised at the North Yorkshire charity she denied to her chief executive, Jane Farquharson, that she had been a signatory.

Farquharson subsequently ‘robustly defended’ Webber when she wrote to the local authority about the matter, according to a written report of the case published last week.

After it emerged Webber had indeed been a signatory, she was suspended and disciplinary proceedings began.

Webber then raised a grievance against Farquharson, and F Lawton, a retired solicitor and trustee of the charity, became involved in the disciplinary proceedings, the tribunal documents say.

Eventually Lawton decided somebody ‘had to take a view’ and summarily dismissed Webber without offering her a hearing or appeal, which prompted the judge, Jennie Wade, to uphold the unfair dismissal charge at Leeds employment tribunal.

But Wade rejected a further claim for wrongful dismissal. “In my judgment the claimant would have been reasonably dismissed following a fair procedure, by a fair minded and reasonable employer acting within the band of reasonable responses, and giving due weight to the complexity of the matters being discussed, within six weeks.

“That is the limit of her lost earnings arising from the actions of the respondent in dismissing her summarily when it did.”

No one was available to comment from Age UK Knaresborough & District and Age UK did not respond to Third Sector‘s request for comment in time for its 12 noon deadline. 

Solicitors representing Webber did not respond to requests for comment. 

Source link

Supreme Court ruling on employment tribunal fees ‘not great news for charities’

Lawyers say the ruling that the fees are unlawful will lead to increasing numbers of ‘try-on’ claims

The Supreme Court ruling that the fees charged for people to bring employment tribunal claims are unlawful will lead to an increase in the number of cases brought against charities, lawyers have warned.

In 2013, the government introduced fees of up to £1,200 for people to bring employment tribunal claims in a bid to reduce the number of spurious cases faced by employers. There was previously no charge for bringing a case.

The fees, which led to a dramatic fall in the number of claims dealt with by employment tribunals, were yesterday ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court after a challenge brought by the trade union Unison, which said they prevented workers from accessing justice.

William Garnett, a partner in the employment department at the law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite, said he thought the ruling would lead to an increase in the number of spurious “try-on” claims against charities.

“This is not great news for employers in the third sector,” he said. “The reason is that, arguably, people on lower rates of pay were disproportionately disadvantaged by the fees regime. The third sector has a lot of low-paid people.”

Garnett said charities might be seen as soft targets for employees trying to bring employment tribunal claims because organisations would be keen to protect their reputations and therefore more likely to want to settle cases.

“It is a sector that does get taken advantage of,” he said. “Of course there are a lot of genuine claims, but there are a lot of spurious ones also.”

Nick Le Riche, a partner in the employment team at the law firm Bircham Dyson Bell, agreed that the ruling would lead to an increase in the number of claims against charities and said the ruling might result in people trying to bring claims that were otherwise out of time.

They might argue that under the old fees structure they could not afford to bring the case in the time allowed, he said, and argue that the claim should be allowed in the new environment.

But both Garnett and Le Riche said they thought the government would try to reintroduce a new charging regime.

Garnett said the Supreme Court had not ruled that any fees were unlawful, just the fee structure previously implemented.

“This is not the end of the story,” he said. “I’m sure the government will be back with a new fees regime.”

Source link

Tribunal orders Scottish Refugee Council to pay two former staff £27,000

A Glasgow employment tribunal found the charity had unfairly dismissed two former refugee integration advisers

The Scottish Refugee Council has been ordered by an employment tribunal to pay two former employees almost £27,000 in compensation and expenses for unfair dismissal and discrimination.

In a judgment issued by the Glasgow employment tribunal last week, the SRC was found to have unfairly dismissed Stephen McGuire and Petra Kasparek from their roles as refugee integration advisers on 30 June 2016.

As a result, the tribunal ordered the charity to rehire McGuire on or before 31 July 2017 on his previous pay and conditions, and pay him arrears of wages of £6,084.09 and expenses of £1,200.

Kasparek was found to have been discriminated against because she was on maternity leave and was compensated with £8,466.02 and £10,000 compensation for injury to feelings as a result of the charity’s discrimination.

Of this figure, £4,487.35 is payable to the public purse because Kasparek had been receiving unemployment benefit after her dismissal.

She was also granted £1,200 reimbursement of fees in taking the case to court.

Kasparek and McGuire worked for the charity’s refugee integration service, which was principally funded by a two-year, £2m grant from the Big Lottery Fund that ended on 30 June 2016, the judgment said.

The SRC made a formal application for a second grant from the BLF at some point before the original grant was due to run out, but became aware that a decision would not be made until August and decided to give notice of the risk of redundancy to the four refugee integration advisers.

A second application was made to the BLF for development funding, which would have kept the service running until a long-term decision was reached, but it was rejected.

Kasparek, while funded by the grant, was on an indefinite contract and went on maternity leave in June 2015. McGuire, who was previously on a temporary contract, was employed as maternity cover, according to the judgment.

Kasparek gave notice of her intention to return from maternity leave on 12 May 2016, but decided to take her accrued annual leave until 4 July 2016.

The affected staff were given formal notices of dismissal. The tribunal found there was “no attempt by the respondent to consult with any of the individual recipients of these letters when they were issued” or prior to 13 June 2016.

The SRC board then decided to retain two of the four affected refugee integration advisers for two months from the end of the grant, with all four affected staff undergoing interviews to decide who would be retained.

Kasparek was not included in many of the communications sent out by the charity to those affected by the redundancy decision, the tribunal found.

It said she was disadvantaged in the interview process for the two temporary roles because she was unable to refer to recent examples of work, having been on maternity leave. She also appealed her dismissal, which she lost, although McGuire did not make an appeal.

Kasparek was unemployed until 3 October 2016, but her new role paid £94 a week less than her previous salary.

The BLF grant application was eventually successful and ran for two years from 1 September 2016, but Kasparek was not reappointed.

McGuire took some temporary employment before finding a new job.

The tribunal’s judgment said that it was not impressed with the evidence provided by John Wilkes, chief executive of the SRC at the time of the redundancies, and Kes Cameron, head of finance and administration. It said that Wilkes had “a surprisingly poor understanding of the respondent’s policies and procedures” and Cameron was “clearly and significantly lacking in experience or understanding of the role of a manager conducting an appeal against dismissal”.

In a statement, Gary Christie, interim chief executive of the SRC, said: “SRC always seeks to retain the expertise of our highly dedicated staff. However, like many charities, we face difficult staffing decisions in tight timeframes when project funding streams come to an end and no new funding is in place.

“The tribunal decision shows that in this instance we got it wrong. The board and management team will carefully consider the judgment in detail. The charity will implement all necessary actions, including an audit of our HR processes, to make sure that when difficult redundancy situations regrettably arise in the future we do so equitably and in line with our policies.”

Source link