Wife (teaching ssistant) sacked for gross misconduct

[ms_smith]

The law will look at the circumstances around the problem that led to her dismissal and whether that was fair and lawful I am saying that she should 'use' the fact that she was entitled to the permit because of her special needs pupils. It is explained above, you need expert advice to be sure though that what we are saying is right.

 

Let's try to crack on this issue: what is sure is that the school didn't treat her differently than any other non-teacher holding position employee when asking everybody in question to remove their cars from alarmed residential parking spots. Otherwise, is it really reasonable to expect that any school should allow other (non special needs pupils associated with) teaching assistants to pop out to sort parking issues?

Further, had her car anything to do with the fact that she was taking care of special needs pupils such as it formed crucial part of the teaching process she was constantly or regularly depending on and that there was a difference, in this respect, when compared to other teaching assistants and their pupils?

 

If you decide to go on with this special needs defence you would need to show and prove that the school normally allows other teaching assistants to pop out to sort out parking space issues. Rather tough defence, to be honest.

There is no difference between leaving special needs kids and those of no special needs without a care - in either case they shouldn't be left alone.

 

So: no, I think it is stretching the law a little bit to say only her among other assistants, as a teaching assistant to special needs pupils, was entitled to a parking space because of her particular job.

 

By way of personal comment and on the above grounds, I find it odd, in general, not to allow all teaching assistants park near the school knowing they all may carry bulky teaching aides from time to time. If the amount of space is a problem (that there wouldn't be space for everyone), there is always a number of other, less detrimental solutions, I believe - calling the Union for support being the first step.

 

Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea to raise this issue during that appeal meeting as well, knowing that there will be a number of governors present, but make sure, finaldj, that the-unreasonable-time-to-find-parking-spot aspect will not be overshadowed by it.

Edited January 13, 2012 by ms_smith

[ms_smith]

It is not unusual for them varying their own policies when there are admin problems. They have to be genuine though and reasonable in length. They cannot be used as an excuse not to hear the appeal or case. Write to them and ask when they think they can comply with their own policy on this matter and hold them to that date. In these processes you may need time too and again no reasonable request should be refused. Give and take until you can show they are taking the p*ss.

 

I shall warn you that THEY might rightly be annoyed when OP's wife will kick off for no reasonable reason. Do you know those governors? Do you know what they are doing apart from being governors? I am asking because, just to give an example, I know at least one employment judge who happens to be a governor for a local school as well. So calm down and be patient. The case is about to be heard by not the street walkers who have got plenty of time on their back. Sometimes it simply may take time to complete certain process so as to all the neccessary people's diaries could cross at some convenient point.

 

If I were finaldj's wife, I would use this time and my own energy to concentrate on defence, reading the comments in this thread as well so as to form my view.

Edited January 15, 2012 by ms_smith

[ms_smith]

 

I think I would concentrate, with any defence for your wife, on arguing, during that appeal meeting, that given the time they gave her to find any alternative parking spot - from 7 November (suspension) to 11 November (meeting date) - that it is not a reasonable time (knowing that a reasonable approach is something every employer is bound by law to restrict any time-disputed issues as well to) to find a secure but foremostly convenient for any residents around, parking space. That was not even a week!

 

Since they themselves, the school, stress it out how important it is to maintain good relations with residents being the face of the school, I would simply fight back with exacty the same argument and see what happens.

 

Forget about other evidence you have, they may rightly dismiss it. Concentrate on this aspect of having found parking space and informing them about it on 18 November while they ignored it completely, given the circumstances.

 

Naturally, your wife, as anyone else in those circumstances, was traumatised by experience that her car was damaged 3 times in the past having parked randomly and that she received a verbal abuse while it was clear and confirmed by the police that she did park legally, so it would take anyone in this kind of situation more time, courage and caution to search for a new parking space along residential space, which she managed to achieve and informed the school about on 18 November. Make sure she brings this subject up at the appeal. Otherwise, they won't guess themselves that these are, in fact, mitigating factors.

 

Now, all the above I wrote will have little merit and chance to succeed if you will not establish in the beginning of the appeal meeting whether the school is approving staff parking among local residence should local residence be happy with them parking nearby. In other words, do you and your wife have impression that should the local residence be happy with staff parking nearby, the school is ever happy with that as well?

 

Read the school's grievance policy and who will be chairing the appeal meeting - whether headteacher will be just the witness - because, again, if they say they don't mind staff parking among local residence should locals don't mind, it will be easier to argue that the time they gave your wife to find a new parking spot was clearly unreasonable.

From their response "too little too late" I can draw conclusions that they don't actually mind...

So there is a chance you will circle the school around if you play it properly...

[finaldj]

Sorry for the delayed response I've had internet problems.

 

Not much to update at the moment just waiting now for a letter to say when the appeal date is.

 

ms_smith thanks for getting in contact.

 

On the parking front my wife as said had issues with parking outside the school and local residence were complaining we have emails as proof not from the local residence but from the school getting intouch with staff (intranet mail) asking them for example the can the owner of Reg **** please move there car from number 24 they are complaining again or same again from number 28 etc.

 

The school site manager had been sticking notes on the card windscreens asking staff not to park between numbers **** to **** as some of them were parked on the browe of a hill and stating the highway code section 243 or something like that my wife got a few letter headed papers from the school saying the same thing but she was never parked illegally and the highway police had checked her car a few times after residence complained to the police she even had a visit from them while working one day after a complaint went in. although they said there was nothing to worry about her car was parked fine.

 

this has gone on since 2009 my wife from sept 10 - oct 11 parked in the school and there wasn't any problems although those staff that continued to park outside of the school emails still went round asking staff to move their cars. it wasn't a regular request but it did happen at least 2-3 times a week with the odd threat of the police being called out if they didn't move.

 

In oct 11 school holidays start off an email went round to say parking permits were coming into effect my wife apparently didn't say anything during the consultation period about wanting to park in the school grounds which they have held her to but she said that there was no point in asking for a permit as she wouldn't have met the criteria they were asking for which was.

 

Distance travelled & time started.

 

We live 2 miles from her work and she started later than the teachers as did all the teaching assistants. none of the teaching assistants got a permit for parking in school grounds which my wife stated none of them met the criteria. so the school didn't even take into consideration parking disputes outside of school grounds with local residence.

 

The school have stated that my wife should have looked for parking in the school holidays while off for the week but she told them we were on holiday and didn't get back while the sunday evening the say before she was to go back to work and that she stated to them that a holiday is just that a holiday not to spend time doing work related matters and in any event she may not have found suitable parking. they also added her suspension into it as you stated from me from 7th november they wanted her to utilise her suspension time to find parking e.g 7th november to the 10th november as her meeting with the school was on the 11th at 10am so I can't inc that day really and her suspension was at 2pm on the 7th november so in reality they only gave her 2 days to look for a suitable parking space local to the school that she considered safe.

 

It wasn't until the 18th of november that she did infact find parking and informed the school right away after checking the parking area out for 2 days e.g morning, noon and evening to make sure that it wasn't going to effect local residence however on the 18th they sent her a letter to say that her disciplinary was on the 1st december. the comment "too little too late" was one of the governors comments when my wife said that the head teacher had made a witness statement on the 7th november and signed it under the 1998 something act but in that statement he did say that should my wife find parking before the hearing he would consider the matter dropped. there defence was that the letter for her disciplinary had already gone out to her and it was then too late to use that excuse.

 

She stated that the letter was to inform her of the hearing date but the head teacher had stated "the matter would be dropped if she found parking before the hearing" to me that means the 1st of december not the letter informing her of the date? do you think I could as already have in the appeal letter stated this very point?

[finaldj]

Further to this.

 

The site manager had stated that where she was parked in school was blocking delivery vans from getting into the school and emergency vehicles and that the first monday she parked in the school a delivery could not take place and they had to go without.

 

In the hearing the site manager then said a delivery could take place but it was hard for it to reverse and get out. this was contradictory to his signed statement and the school used it as evidence but the governors ignored it that in itself shows that the school can lie on a signed statement and nothing was done about it no questions in the hearing were raised about it?

 

The school over parking have told my wife she is the face of the school when parking outside of the school so when residence complain it makes the school look bad and they have to take action on her she said to the investigating officer that if she parks outside the school she gets pulled into the office she parks in the the school she gets pulled into the office and the only alternative the school has suggested is that she parks in the same area the residence are complaining and her car is getting damaged and can I add that her car was not the only one damaged outside of the school.

 

The site manager as written in his statement that the stress of parking outside the school has effected my wife. If I were to answer your question ms_smith then I would say the school is happy for staff to park outside the school but the residence are not so with limited space and trying to find a spot to park outside the school that doesn't annoy the residence makes it difficult in saying that the spot she found is about 5-10 mins walk and the residence she spoke to in that street dont mind.

 

The school put her on a disciplinary 2 hours after parking in school grounds then suspended her a week later while investigation were carried out I stated in her appeal letter that a letter was given to her about a disciplinary but no meeting had taken place with the head to go through "alternatives" other than taking it right to a disciplinary.

Edited January 17, 2012 by finaldj

[finaldj]

I will post what the closing letter said of the outcome letter if that helps?

[ms_smith]

OK, let's clarify something: it looks like the meeting of 11 November was, in legal terms, an investigation hearing and as such has been considered for the matter to be dropped should your wife have found a parking space. In their perception she didn't and while any alternatives might have been argued on 11 November they weren't and so they sent her a letter of 18 November to invite her to a disciplinary hearing of 1 December (outcome of investigation hearing, as they reasonably believed she had a case to answer).

 

If you believe your wife made genuine mistake in her reasoning which date to consider as "hearing" or it was somehow misleading/not clear from the headteacher's letter of 7 November - then yes, you can always bring that up during forthcoming meeting; that would support her position that she couldn't have foreseen when the school will send her a letter to attend meeting of 1 December, providing she wasn't somehow told about it before; that it was pure coincidence, that based on her confusion she sent an e-mail to school of a found parking space the day they sent her a disciplinary letter, received a few days later only.

 

What exactly do you have in mind when you say about your wife going through "alternatives" meetings with the headteacher, as you stated in your appeal letter? Sorry, I am not clear about that...

 

P.S. I said earlier that I consider a few days to find a parking space too unreasonable. I stick to that because if my car was damaged three times in the past and the residents would continue to complain despite the police confirming they are wrong, it would take longer time for me to find a courage to start searching again for a parking spot. Might find it dificult to admit it to some people, especially during investigation hearing of a work disciplinary, but that's for sure how I would feel.

 

*****************

Papasmurf (and other CAGers), how do you see my reasoning in relation to special needs aspect? Let's discuss...

Edited January 17, 2012 by ms_smith

[honeybee13]

I will post what the closing letter said of the outcome letter if that helps?

 

Yes, it could. Take off any personal details though .

 

My best, HB

[finaldj]

I'm at work at the moment but will post the letter up once I have finish tonight.

 

Well the clear this up.

 

The 11th of November meeting was the last meeting to go ahead from the investigating officer which was with my wife and her union rep

 

In this meeting the Deputy head (investigating officer) and her representative a (HR of education)

 

A number of questions were asked but this HR kept butting in about her being the face of the school outside and during school hours and saying stuff like well other staff have moved their cars when asked by the residence but you have not why?

 

Wifes reply was that I pay car tax I can park where I want that is legal hence outside of the school which where I was parking was legal even the police said it was so why should I move it. simply because some of the local residence dont like where some of the cars are parked.

 

My wife said it was more of an interigation than a statement and her Union said it was clear from the meeting they wanted her out as they seemed pretty clear it was going to go to a full hearing as no indication was given to any leeway or alternatives to find parking before wanting to take it to a full hearing.

 

Her Union said prepare for a letter in the next few days for a final hearing.

 

"alternatives" Well to answer that after the school holidays "first day back" end of Oct11she parked in the school grounds the site manager said to her with his little tick board stood at the school gate. "are you going to move your car" she said "no" he repeated himself a few times and got the same response back. He then said I will pass this onto the head she siad ok but by the way you have knowing there as been parking issues outsite the school with a lot of staff? he replied that she can't park in here and suggested the same road the residence had been kicking off.

 

It was left at that and then 2 hours later the priniciple pulled her to one side and issued a letter that because she wouldn't move her car that morning it is going to an investigation.

 

That was when my wife tried to explain to him about the parking issues outside of the school grounds ( he was aware of them anyway) he said well you had the school holidays as an opportunity to find alternative parking and left it down the investigating officer then and wouldn't talk about the matter further. so when I say alternatives I meant in respect of you've got a week or so to find parking outside of the school or we'll take it to and investigation the school just jumped right in 2 hours later on the first day.

 

To be more clear on the principles statement about dropping the case if parking could be found.

 

Wife (emailed school 18th november) letter came (19th December Saturday) although school claimed wife should have had the letter on the 18th as they posted it the 17th.

 

Its not the first time we have had mail come late like this from the school who claim to send it the day before but dont get it till 2 days later. when we explained to them that posting mail at the end of the day or last day of the week which they do we tend to get a lot of mail from them Saturdays it wont always go out the same day. but they weren't having any of it.

 

The school didn't read the email till the 21st either from the looks of it as wife sent email late 5/6pm ish but staff can access emails at home but can't prove that it would have been read that same day.

 

But the head made his written statement on the 7th as stated but we didn't know he made this statement because it came in the pack 7 days before the hearing of everyones statements which is when we read what he put but we were never informed about what he said until we read it in writing ourselves.

 

So we had emailed the school on the 18th, letter came about the hearing 19th (they claim it should have been 18th when we got it) fully hearing pack of all alligations was posted through the door at our address on the 22nd which is when we read what the head at put in his written statement.

 

To clarify things we hadn't seen from the 7th-22nd what the head had actually said and nothing had been mentioned from him or anyone else that if she had found parking before the hearing that the case was be dropped wife raised this with the governors during the meeting who simply stated "too little too late"

 

1 question though even though we found parking on the 18th and the head stating should we find parking before the hearing its dropped there wasn't any mention whether this was by the time the letter came for the hearing or whether it meant by the 1st dec when the actual hearing took place. in my eyes it was when the hearing took place because the head could have cancelled the hearing at any point before it actually took place and considering we hadn't seen his statement until the 22nd.

 

I apologise if all this sounds confusing its hard to explain to outsiders in full detial

[ms_smith]

Well, this tiny little detail - that you haven't known about headteacher's statement of 7 November - changes everything...

I guess he might have made this statement so as to voice his own opinion that your wife should have used her suspension time to sort her parking space asap.

He may argue that they have given your wife alternatives already: when they issued her a 18-months warning over parking issues as well and when the school issued new directives as to staff's parking.

I know this may not sound optimistic to your wife.

 

I will think what else can be done...

[finaldj]

No the 18month written warning was for lateness into school. Parking Issues were not considered by the governors even though it was mentioned as a result of the lateness.

 

The fact he made a statement saying the matter would be dropped if she found parking before the hearing was signed and dated the 7th November on a legally binding document. I dont know the law on this but even though we didn't get to see this statement till the full pack came through on the 22nd it should be legally binding because he has in effect given her the opportunity to find a parking space before the hearing.

 

Like you said from the 7th to the 11th she had only been given so they had in effect given her 3 days to find parking outside of the school which wasn't enough time considering she had to contact and have a meeting with her union to go through the alligations. so on the 11th the school had more or less decided that it will be going to a hearing. so in all honesty I think if she had even found parking on the 8th and told them it wouldn't have made a difference. this was coming from her Unions advice that she had pretty much given them the gun and ammo and she was the target.

 

The only time the school had given her the opportunity to find parking in reality was during the school holidays which the start of the holidays which we were away the whole week. If I am going to be honest but even though we argued about the parking being an issue and playing a big part in all this the governors only looked at 2 things.....She went against a managment directive (principles words were it makes him look a fool to all staff if he can't deal with one person) and insubordination (likes to do her own thing and wont listen to management)

 

So the governors mainly focused on this but because the 18 month final warning was for lateness they accused her of similar things "failure to follow management instructions" so they kind of added this onto the current alligations the management showing that she can't obey instructions and directives given out by them.

[finaldj]

As I said I would here are the 2 letters one of her final meeting before the hearing and the outcome letter after her sacking. I can't really say much more and would like to thank all those for helping best they could unless you have any questions to these I will update you again once we have had our appeal meeting but I doubt it will get over tourned but would rather go out fully at least trying.

 

Btw ms_smith I had mentioned her meeting throughout being the 11th november in actual fact it was the 10th when it took place so they only gave her tuesday/wednesday to find parking.

Conclusion of disciplinary investigation - dated the 17th on the letter didn't recieve untill the 19th November

 

I am writing further to conclude the investigation. following our meeting on the 10th November I can confirm that the findings of the investigation support the decision to refer the case to a formal disciplinary hearing before a panel of governors.

 

As you have a current live final warning on file the above (failure to follow a management directive and insubordination) may constitute cumulative misconduct and you must be aware that a potential outcome if this hearing is dismissal.

 

the rest of the letter talks about notice given for the hearing etc

 

Outcome of disciplinary hearing

 

I write to confirm the outcome of the hearing.

 

The panel concluded that there was evidence that your misconduct was cumulative, in that you had a live warning from the 28 June 2011 (which included wilful disobedience of instructions) and the panel felt your failure to follow a reasonable directive and insubordination in these circumstances was a continuance of this type of misconduct.

 

the decision was to dismiss you with immediate effect. the panel were satisfied that you were aware from the management directive that you were not entitled to park in the car park without a permit and the evidence indicated you had failed to take responsibility for finding alternative parking. All other staff had complied with the directive regarding parking. The panel had regard to the potential health and safety implications of your parking in an unauthorised way. leading to increased risk of impediments to emergency vehicles accessing the school. We also noted the inconvenience and difficulties to other staff and delivery vehicles by your actions.

 

We further the view that your actions constituted gross misconduct. Justifying the loss of notice pay. due to your insubordination being of such a serious nature. In that your disregard for the managment directive was compounded by your declaration that school could take disciplinary action against you plus the potential health and safety implications of you continuing to disregard instructions. We were not satisfied that you would seek to change your behaviour in the future.

 

You can appeal in 10 days etc etc.

[finaldj]

I thought I would mention that 90% of our case was about the parking issues outside of school and nothing was mentioned in the outcome letter as if nothing was even said about it or the governors were not interested.

 

Same as the "inconvenience to other staff" it was actually one staff member that couldn't get her car out at the time before the parking permit came into effect and over 40 staff were parking in and around the school car park blocking each other in so it wasn't just my wife then and she emialed the site manager about it not against my wife as such but about cars in general parking around the car park the email was dated June 11 so why the governors have put this in I dont know as it was shown to them that is was before the permit parking and everyone was parking in the school grounds they seemed to have ingnored this but I explained this in the appeal letter.

 

Finally I will repeat what the headmaster said in his written statement -

 

Investigating officer - you said at the beginning you might want to provide more information?

 

Principle - I feel I'm in a difficult position and recognise that we are in a disagreement with wife but she still insists on parking on site and the quicker this is resolved the safer the school community will be and I would like to compromise on her part of her parking off site prior to any hearing.

 

Signed - 7th November

 

Once again thank you for all the advice you have given and if I need to update you on anything I can if not I will post once this is all over.

[ms_smith]

This I would like to compromise on her part of her parking off site prior to any hearing is not exactly what you said earlier, isn' it? He only hopes that she finds a parking space before any hearing so that it doesn't have to reach any decision of dismissal.

 

Nevertheless, you should argue that if he was happy to consider a compromising solution prior to any hearing, he should have made it properly clear at the time of her suspension. As such possibility definitely existed and is documented, it might not have been fair that she wasn't informed about it. The fact that she found a parking space and informed the school about it however, proves the panel's assumption she "wouldn't seek to change her behaviour in the future" wrong.

In any event, assuming that you can always find a safe, conflict-free parking spot over two days, knowing that some residents may be simply away for some time (including during school's holidays), is very unreasonable. Especially when you remind them of police involvement in the past when you parked legally but to local residence' disapproval while you being the face of the school.

 

Keep us posted how things go.

 

P.S. The last time someone told me they doubted to have their unfair dismissal overturned was when I didn't see the papers but still provided dismissed person with logical, realistic solutions/arguments. Should they have trusted me, we would have overturned ET judgement. And that was actually confirmed by a practising lawyer...

Edited January 20, 2012 by ms_smith

[finaldj]

Just a small update. got a letter today from the education board/local council.....

 

Dear wife....

 

It is alleged by the principle of school that you trespassed at the school on december 15. you came onto the premises without lawful authority and took photo's of cars parked on the school site. I must warn you that taking photo's without consent may constitute a breach of the data protection act 1998

 

Please note that the school buildings, playgrounds and playing fields and car park are all private property and you therefore have no right to be on the school site.

 

your presence on school premises again with out lawful authority may constitute a nuisance of disturbance to the annoyance of persons lawfully using those premises, contrary to section 547(1) of the education act 1996 which states:

 

Any persons who wothout lawful authority is present on the premises to which this section applies and causes or permits nuisance or disturbance to the annoyance of persons who lawfully use those premises (whether or not such persons are present at the time) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine..

 

Letter goes on about a fine and court action should she tresspass agian.

 

 

However I would like to add that on said date this happend my wife agreed by the school went in to collect bagged up stuff from her pigeon hole, collect her 2 wage slips and collect her reference agreed by the school. She went in with her father who while she waited in the car went to collect her stuff from reception. it was then that she took photo's of the illegally parked cars on the school grounds and sent them with her appeal application.

 

She has been in contact with the education authority who sent the letter but the lady wasn't in so passed a message onto her stating that wife was allowed there as agreed by the school to collect her belongings.

 

Also I'm not sure about the data protection act 1998 on media but while she did take photo's during her week in school before her suspension the school took photo evidence of her parking from their CCTV (dated) and from a digital camera from different sides of her car that the CCTV couldn't see and that wasn't (dated)

 

The first we new that these photos were used as evidence were when her pack came through the door 7 days prior to the hearing. Under the data protection act would the same rules apply to wife as she never gave consent for them to take photo's or distribute them to other parties?

 

(ms-smith sorry I must have got it wrong when I posted initially about heads statement about parking off site which is why I posted what he said again in his words and not from memory)

 

Btw found out today from the Union that her appeal date is dated Feb 1st we haven't got a letter about it yet but wife phoned Union today for any updates which it was them that had the letter union were surprised we hadn't got one yet.

[finaldj]

Thought I would add that the 3 cars parked outside the front entrance on the school ground parked where they shouldn't for the principle to see her taking photo's he would have had to have looked passed the cars parked where they shouldn't and in any event wouldn't have known she was taking photos as her phone was just sat above the steering wheel and her car about 50ft from his office he wouldn't have known what she was doing with her phone as the flash wasn't even on.

 

So the only conclusion I can come up is that the photo's were passed onto the school which shouldn't have been because the principle was a witness during the hearing.

[ms_smith]

Rats to this Principle. Sounds like they really want to intimidate you before the appeal hearing.

 

To be precise, a breach to data protection would be if your wife published the photos of the cars without covering their reg plates. Otherwise, it is always her (or anyone else's) right to take as many pictures as one likes so as to report to any source of authority a driver's breach one is witnessing.

Edited January 20, 2012 by honeybee13
Language.

[ms_smith]

I would give up, though, on continuing the defence with those pictures your wife took. They are irrelevant for your wife's case and, as I said, may unnecessarily antagonise the board against your wife.

 

You have already written a letter explaining the nature and authorisation of your wife's visit to the school so there should be no problem over that any longer.

 

1st of February - well then, you have got plenty of time to prepare... ;]

[finaldj]

Thanks for the advice will sorting stuff out next week wife has a meeting with her Union although with this case they haven't been supportive at all.

 

As you can see though the school have always been like this I call it "professional bullying" I've actually seen it first hand myself when I went as a witness with then girfriend.

[ms_smith]

Thanks for the advice will sorting stuff out next week wife has a meeting with her Union although with this case they haven't been supportive at all.

 

As you can see though the school have always been like this I call it "professional bullying" I've actually seen it first hand myself when I went as a witness with then girfriend.

 

Hello finaldj,

 

I guess simply because you have some sort of comparison when you see their - Unions' - advice and ours, in here, and you see who cares more... :/

 

But don't worry too much, I see quite a potential to win the case , if argued my way...?

 

• Bullet point your arguments on paper and have them in front of you.
  
• Make sure you stress it out all the time that the aspect of reasonable approach every unbiased authority should find the most important issue to adhere to, was clearly forgotten about, in this case, by the school.
  
• Don't hesistate to even copy some sentences from here.
  

 

Also, supposing you will win the appeal - is your wife comfortable to come back to work there? You mentioned she stayed in the car after her dismissal and didn't enter the school's builiding to collect some stuff. That may suggest she doesn't trust them anymore; may now feel harassed from being accused of tresspasing when she was clearly allowed in the school, as you say; may have, by now, ultimately lost trust and confidence in her employer to treat her objectively and with respect, etc.

If that's the case and she doesn't want to work there anymore (because she can't imagine herself coming back there), there is always an option that she can resign straight after having been restored to work and she would be well in a position to claim constructive dismissal, I reckon.

These are always individually drafted emotions and only the person involved will know how they feel exactly. Providing they are genuine, one can decide on it further.

Edited January 25, 2012 by ms_smith

[finaldj]

She had the meeting today with Union who still stick to the grounds that this appeal wont make a difference and that all the school are focusing on are the facts which are she broke school rules, could have found parking off site then put a grievence in to argue her case on the offset but decided to park in school anyway even when asked to move her car.

 

As for the principles statement " I feel I'm in a difficult position and recognise that we are in a disagreement with wife but she still insists on parking on site and the quicker this is resolved the safer the school community will be and I would like to compromise on her part of her parking off site prior to any hearing.

 

Well the schools response to this is for the appeal - The compromise from the principles witness statement, referes to him hoping she would park offsite while the initial investigation took place. He was not willing to compromise on her actions as she was expected to adhere to the management directive as every other member of staff did. He simply hoped she would show some respect by removing her car until a conclusion was reached. At no point did this indicate that her moving her car would end the process.

 

Simply put he didn't say in his statement any of what the investigating office just replied to only what I posted on here. While he might not have actually said the case would be over if she found parking he did ask/hint of a compromise not simply that wife should show some respect to the school while they investigate as they had shown clear evidence that they were going to take it to a hearing whether she found parking out side of school or not.

 

Still going to have a go and will start looking at typing something up early next week as we still have a load of evidence to re-submit that the governors dont seem to have taken into account. In the pack that got sent to us today the photo's of parked cars we submitted as further evidence have not been included and our only response to that was the letter that got sent to us about taking photos on private property.

 

I must admit I have been given better advice on here than wife has with Union they dont seem that interested in this one now....they did however give wife some information for unfair dismissal if the appeal fails but said they can't comment on that as the legal guys know better than them if there is a case to take it further.

 

If so will look at our car/house cover to see if any of them can cover a case like this.

[ms_smith]

I can't believe you seem to loose the spirit. I am not surprised the union is giving up already, though (have seen them, union reps, doing so too many times...).

I am so annoyed really, especially that their advice of a grievance to argue her case on the offset seems totally ridiculous and random to me! Didn't they (the school) want to maintain the face-of-the-school policy in the first place? Now that would be a barrel of laughs... lol.

 

No disrespect to the lawyers' profession if you decide to hire one but I wouldn't expect a miracle from every single one, especially so-called a professional one. It is like with other professions - one needs to be born to feel what they're doing.

 

I will tell you what and your wife corrects me if I am wrong with some details: the school may have some point in arguing that she in a way objected to a management directive but there was a reason for it that she objected. It didn't happen just like that - there is a history and a background to understand why she did it. She did park at some point offsite, randomly, but was obviously asked to move her car by the local residents what disturbed her work. She then parked somewhere else legally and was asked to move her car away again by local residents, even though the police backed her. The school backed up local residents because she is the face of the school but was she supposed to find a parking spot during school's holidays when it is obvious some residents may have both cars and kids and be away (just as you were yourself)? When she parked on site (I assume it happened once after schools holidays) but was told to move her car, was she supposed to park randomly again and inevitably violate the school's last-minute policy of being the face of the school outside of it?

 

Having said all that, what was the point of the principle not making it clear that he was ready to compromise the situation prior to any hearing if he expressed such a willingness in the first place?

Having said all that, you need to remember that the investigation and disciplinary was ONLY about the fact she parked on site and refused to move her car (partly due to the reasons explained above).

Having said all that, had they informed her, at the time of the suspension, about already felt willingness to compromise prior to any hearing and provided with a reasonable time to fulfill obligations, there would be no reason for dismissal as she found a parking spot and informed them about it on 18th November.

 

Yes, the principal made some vague statement on 7th of November but the overall sense of it is not consistent with their decision to dismiss her without thorough evaluation of the cae, including their own commitments.

 

Now, are you, finaldj, convinced that you CAN win?

 

Honestly, forget about what the unions said. All they care right now is if your wife will join them while employed somewhere else... If - employed...

 

You will win this, if you fight. Till the end. Especially that you do not pay any additional money for legal assistance.

 

I have noticed you are from or around Leeds. I happen to live nearby... Do you want me to come with you to this meeting?

Seriously...

I am happy to dust off my "guns"...

Can't you just hear me racking them...

C'mon! Let's make the union rep's jaw stick to the ground... hahaha!

 

Let me know asap b'cos I will need to book that day as OFF...

Edited January 26, 2012 by ms_smith

[finaldj]

I can't believe you seem to loose the spirit. I am not surprised the union is giving up already, though (have seen them, union reps, doing so too many times...).

I am so annoyed really, especially that their advice of a grievance to argue her case on the offset seems totally ridiculous and random to me! Didn't they (the school) want to maintain the face-of-the-school policy in the first place? Now that would be a barrel of laughs... lol.

 

No disrespect to the lawyers' profession if you decide to hire one but I wouldn't expect a miracle from every single one, especially so-called a professional one. It is like with other professions - one needs to be born to feel what they're doing.

 

I will tell you what and your wife corrects me if I am wrong with some details: the school may have some point in arguing that she in a way objected to a management directive but there was a reason for it that she objected. It didn't happen just like that - there is a history and a background to understand why she did it. She did park at some point offsite, randomly, but was obviously asked to move her car by the local residents what disturbed her work. She then parked somewhere else legally and was asked to move her car away again by local residents, even though the police backed her. The school backed up local residents because she is the face of the school but was she supposed to find a parking spot during school's holidays when it is obvious some residents may have both cars and kids and be away (just as you were yourself)? When she parked on site (I assume it happened once after schools holidays) but was told to move her car, was she supposed to park randomly again and inevitably violate the school's last-minute policy of being the face of the school outside of it?

 

Having said all that, what was the point of the principle not making it clear that he was ready to compromise the situation prior to any hearing if he expressed such a willingness in the first place?

Having said all that, you need to remember that the investigation and disciplinary was ONLY about the fact she parked on site and refused to move her car (partly due to the reasons explained above).

Having said all that, had they informed her, at the time of the suspension, about already felt willingness to compromise prior to any hearing and provided with a reasonable time to fulfill obligations, there would be no reason for dismissal as she found a parking spot and informed them about it on 18th November.

 

Yes, the principal made some vague statement on 7th of November but the overall sense of it is not consistent with their decision to dismiss her without thorough evaluation of the cae, including their own commitments.

 

Now, are you, finaldj, convinced that you CAN win?

 

Honestly, forget about what the unions said. All they care right now is if your wife will join them while employed somewhere else... If - employed...

 

You will win this, if you fight. Till the end. Especially that you do not pay any additional money for legal assistance.

 

I have noticed you are from or around Leeds. I happen to live nearby... Do you want me to come with you to this meeting?

Seriously...

I am happy to dust off my "guns"...

Can't you just hear me racking them...

C'mon! Let's make the union rep's jaw stick to the ground... hahaha!

 

Let me know asap b'cos I will need to book that day as OFF...

 

Thank you very much for the offer of coming along ms-smith but my wife said she will be doing the talking in this case and just having Union as support. The meeting isn't actually at the school either its at some hotel in Garforth. but I do live in Leeds I work for the NHS although my poor spelling and grammar wouldn't signify this

 

 

Its my wife’s 40th birthday this weekend so she has decided to leave things alone until after the weekend so it doesn't spoil anything.

 

 

She did say she would pop on her self and have a read and reply after the weekend so will leave any gaps I have missed for her to fill in.

 

 

You've really give some ideas to float around. We/she hasn't given up no way.

 

 

I've never done an appeal case before so from what I can gather we are limited as to what we can bring up that isn't new info as we are going back over old ground really but approaching it at a different angle and hoping the governors will listen. Worse case is the sacking stands and we really aren't at a loss.

 

 

I must admit though the photo's we sent in of the cars parked were they shouldn't on school grounds did not appear in the case bundle sent to us and has been completely ignored so we will re-submit them on the day but not way heavily on them as evidence.

 

 

The one thing I want wife to raise is and whether this will make a significant difference I have read through the case bundle as it has the transcripts of the hearing and the school raised that while wife was parked in a none-designated area and her 2 front tires was parked on cross yellow hatched lines

 

 

The school took photos of her car for a full week (CCTV and Digital Camera) from different angles and submitted them as part of their evidence one of the governors raised the fact that wife being a driver would have known that parking in any area of cross hatched lines would mean it is breaking the law and that she isn't allowed she agreed with this but said that because the school wasn't in a position to help her she had no choice.

 

 

What I want to raise is that while she was parked there for a week and a bit and the school took photo's the governors concluded that this was “a serious matter for health and safety possibly making it difficult for emergency vehicles to access the school and deliveries to take place”

 

 

They the school didn't take any action themselves knowing where she was parked and played a part for over a week knowing that it “may” have been a problem on health and safety grounds. Instead the week and a half later they suspended her because of a “breach of confidentiality” which was never upheld by the governors.

 

 

I might not have raised that before but its not relevant about the confidentiality. Its my opinion that the school can't even stick to its own rules and policy and could have suspended wife the very first day she parked in that spot on the grounds of health and safety but they didn't.

 

 

In any case they could have asked wife to park somewhere else in school grounds and agreed that it would not alter the investigation but they didn't. So how far we can push this I dont know but I do think that its worth mentioning.

[ms_smith]

finaldj, are the photos of other cars parked where they shouldn't those before your wife's suspension? If so, it seems that while they were "observing" your wife's car for a week and bit, they must have seen those other cars as well. But how would you prove the school did or didn't do anything about it? So I think I understand the governors' position on this point.

What you should point out, however, is that because your wife saw others parking where they shouldn't (photos might be shown in this context) so it was only her natural, spontaneous reaction to follow the peers...

 

Stick to my other arguments as well though and you should be fine.

 

Good luck!

Oh and Happy Bday for the Missus.

Edited January 26, 2012 by ms_smith

[finaldj]

No the photos of wife's car were taken by the school the first week while the investigation was being carried out (November time)

 

Wife had been sacked on December 1st but she took photos of the parked cars on December the 15th. the letter from the legal services appears to highlight the fact she was on the premises without consent and just drove in to take photos. the only reference in the letter that doesn't mention about being on property without consent is this " I must warn you that the taking of such photographs without consent may constitute a breach of the data protection act 1998"

 

She did have consent as went that day with her father to pick up the last of her things from her pigeon hole and he had to sign to take them off the property which while he was in the building she noticed the cars parked where they shouldn't and took the photo's and the legal team have banged on about it being private property.

 

But we haven't distributed the photo's we took only handed them in as part of our appeal to the HR officer of education leeds and the chair of the panel whom the appeal had to be written to.

 

However to quote the data protection act 1998 the school never asked wife for consent to take photo's of her car during the investigation and felt fit to distribute them in their defence. I dont know how the law stands on this but surley this can't be onesided?

 

Even though this legal letter has not been put in the bundle and not appeard to have been used as evidence on the schools part for the appeal they may happen to mention it on the day I dont know can deal with it then.

 

Wife is not going to raise it as a big issues about cars being parked where they shouldn't but will mention it as you say we dont know if anything happend about them but just want to highlight to the governers that the school have raised issue that she as a sole person has gone against school rules and no one else has but clearly after her sacking others are and would like to know what the school have done to take action.

 

Really we have nothing to lose but ask it may help just a little