The employee, a Class Teacher (CT), had been employed for 5+ years when the first allegation arose in July ‘23.  A student alleged that CT had responded inappropriately to a student’s verbal threat by matching it.

In response to this, the Deputy Head (DH) spoke to CT about it as an initial fact-finding discussion.  CT was very agitated and inappropriate in his response, stating that the police should be called, and the student arrested, but denying any inappropriate behaviour himself.  He focused on who had reported him, claiming it was a vendetta.

His behaviour quickly escalated to shouting and he left the classroom and moved to a very public area of the school, where students were present.  DH sought to calm the situation and was joined by the Welfare Officer (WO) who arrived to check everything was ok.  CT threatened this staff member during the interaction, which led to a request for CT to meet with the Headteacher (HT).

A second incident occurred in November ’23 during a three-day residential trip, led by the DH and supported by CT and WO.  There were reports received immediately that CT was acting unusually, undermining the purpose of the trip, refusing to be involved in activities, arguing with some site trainers and encouraging students to complain.

The DH and WO spoke to CT about his conduct at various points.  A heated discussion between all three members of staff took place in front of students.  That night CT sent a grievance to the HT.  DH and WO sent complaint letters to the HT the next day.  The trip ended and CT was signed off due to stress.

How we helped

After seeking advice, the HT undertook a risk assessment supported by EPM and determined it was appropriate to suspend the staff member pending investigation due to concerns about the escalating behaviour.

The Investigation was undertaken by an Independent Officer (IO) appointed from EPM’s Consultancy Team and following a hearing at which EPM advised the decision-maker, the outcome reached was a final written warning.  The investigation highlighted some ways in which the initial discussion with the DH exacerbated the situation.  This had been considered as mitigation in the hearing outcome and EPM supported the HT to draft a development plan for DH that included management of difficult conversations training, delivered by EPM.  Training was also delivered to the WO, and planned for other members of SLT, and 1-2-1 coaching arranged for CT about behaviour management.

Following the second incident in November ’23, the HT sought advice from EPM about how the situation should be managed and agreed discussions would be held with DH and WO to determine if they wished to pursue a grievance or report alleged misconduct, following which it was agreed the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the disciplinary policy.  CT was provided welfare support for his absence and referred to OH, which EPM supported with and drafted the questions for OH.

EPM supported with the absence management of the CT and his welfare.  EPM advised the school in appointing one of their Governors as the Investigating Officer (IO) with EPM providing support and advice to the IO.  It was advised and agreed that because of the close similarities between the grievance and disciplinary, the IO would investigate both cases.

There were significant conflicts between the accounts of the incident and the student statements were supportive of CT’s account, and in conflict with the other two staff members’ accounts.  Unusually and to resolve this conflict, EPM advised seeking statements from the residential staff.

EPM drafted all letters and provided supporting guidance regarding the grievance and disciplinary procedures throughout.  EPM supported the IO in generating questions and preparing for meetings, providing assurances that meetings could be adjourned should additional guidance be required.  This advice was followed during the first meeting when new information regarding the teacher’s Mental Health was raised to gain advice from EPM, and this provided confidence in handling this unexpected new information.  OH confirmed he was well enough to attend interviews, which he did.

The results

The IO’s findings concluded significant mitigation for both parties. The IO concluded that considerable mitigation wasn’t sufficient to dispel the serious concerns in allowing this teacher to continue to work with children.  It was vital to support the IO in framing the situation in a way that appropriately dealt with this.  OH had reported various mental health concerns, although these had not been shared with staff prior to the incident.

CT received two reports (one disciplinary, one grievance) and advised that should he wish, a grievance hearing could be arranged.  Five days were given for a response, and it was confirmed that should no response be received, the IO would accept the findings of the report.  The letter also stated that disciplinary arrangements would be confirmed following his response regarding how he wished to proceed with regards to the grievance, as the report confirmed that there was a case to answer.

A resignation was received from CT but with no response regarding the grievance.  With advice from EPM, in view of the circumstances and taking a pragmatic approach, the HT determined that an informal warning would be sufficient, so a formal hearing was not necessary, enabling the matter to be concluded swiftly.

This was the most challenging investigation the IO had undertaken, despite experience of straightforward investigations (as an ex-Trust CEO).  EPM supported the IO with regular contact throughout, including assisting in how to separate the investigations appropriately.  The initial view of the HT had been to not accept the grievance, noting the impact and disruption this matter had caused, which had initially been fully attributed to CT.  This would have likely elongated the timeframe due to concerns from the Union and CT.  The solution advised by EPM retained the engagement of CT to enable the investigations to proceed and reached a conclusion that addressed both matters.

The IO required a clear steer from EPM on what was needed to navigate the complexities and challenges of the case including managing conflicting statements, handling complex chronology, and dealing with multiple unrequested student statements, and simultaneous investigations.  EPM coached and mentored throughout, providing impartial and pragmatic advice.