Back in the days of Covid-19, mandatory mask wearing was a polarising issue. Notably where schools were concerned. Five years on, what are we to make of a headline “teacher fired over letting pupils remove masks during pandemic wins tribunal case”, and the wider decision in Howlett v Michael Hall School? 
 
Ahead of a school talent show in October 2020, the Principal exempted pupils from mask wearing for “physical reasons” or “distress”. Mr Howlett interpreted this as “anxious or uncomfortable”. A number of pupils took advantage; some colleagues took outrage. 
 
Six days earlier, Mr Howlett had arranged a school trip to Battle Abbey. There was a system in place requiring electronic parental consents. He was advised that four pupils’ consents were out of date. He was unable to check this himself. A senior leadership team member then emailed him “have a wonderful trip”. He assumed that this meant correct authority was in place. The school’s health & safety adviser discovered after the trip that this was not so. 
 
The Principal suspended Mr Howlett on the day after the talent show. The investigation meeting, two weeks later, remarkably failed to identify the potential charges, only mentioning “a safeguarding concern”. A month later, the Deputy Head dismissed him for gross misconduct. His appeal to the school trustees failed. Curiously, both the Principal and the Deputy Head left the school shortly afterwards, and neither gave evidence to the tribunal. 
 
In condemning the dismissal as “dishonest and opportunistic”, at a time when the school was evidently troubled and looking for savings, and when the Principal was found to have observed earlier that Mr Howlett “does not know what’s about to hit him”, the tribunal taught the school some salutary lessons. It had been inconsistent in its approach to gross misconduct offences. The investigation was far from careful and conscientious. It failed to look at exculpatory as well as damning evidence. Record keeping was poor. There was no written report. Key witnesses were not interviewed about what they saw at the talent show. The investigating officer falsely asserted that regulations governing masks in schools were akin to those for shopping. The school’s officers gave every impression of not understanding how the parental consents system worked. 
 
Nor did the tribunal did not spare the rod over the school’s procedure. The school’s two HR professionals, scheduled the process at a pace that was not ACAS compliant. The Deputy Head’s ineptitude and hesitancy gave the impression that his findings may not have been his decision alone. The appeal “made a bad process worse” and was condemned as undocumented, unmanaged and rushed. As to mitigation, no regard was paid to the lack of any parental complaints, or to the likelihood of dismissal costing Mr Howlett his teaching career. 
 
Dismissal accordingly fell outside the range of reasonable responses. Ironically, the school was a Steiner establishment, dedicated to harmonising pupils’ physical, emotional and spiritual aspects via retaining the same teacher for pupils over a sustained period of years. 
 
Would early independent legal advice (as opposed to internal HR advice) have made a difference? Regardless of its agenda, the school might thereby have realised the potential downside of its predetermined course of action, and considered alternatives. It might have avoided a tribunal decision that was just as shaming as costly. 
 
Do you need advice on a difficult and complex disciplinary process? Putting it differently, might a second opinion on a preferred outcome be worthwhile? Get in touch. Contact David Cooper on 0121 325 5402 or via dmc@coxcooper.co.uk . 
 
Share this post:

Leave a comment: