Senior Teacher and Union Representative Awarded £370K After Being Unfairly Dismissed For Trade Union Involvement

In Ms Carmen Wood-Hope v Salford City Council and The Governors of Friars Primary School, a teacher was awarded over £370,000 after being dismissed by the headteacher, whose actions were found to be driven by resentment towards her role as a union representative.

Below, we examine the events leading up to the case and the employment tribunal’s findings. We also discuss the rights of employees involved in trade unions and whether dismissal for participation in union activities is lawful.

If you have faced mistreatment or dismissal from work as a union rep, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can discuss your case, answer your queries, and outline your possible next steps. To learn more about the help we provide, simply:

• Give us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback via our online form

The Facts in Ms Carmen Wood-Hope v Salford City Council and The Governors of Friars Primary School

Union Representative Claim Background

Ms Carmen Wood-Hope (“the Claimant”) began working as a teacher for Salford City Council (“the First Respondent”) at Friars Primary School (the school of “the Second Respondent”) on 24 February 2014. She had qualified as a teacher in 2011 and was accomplished in her field. In fact, in March 2017, she was awarded additional pay from the Second Respondent in recognition of her ‘highly competent’ performance.

Tensions Arise as Union Representative Challenges Leadership Decisions

In 2017, the Claimant became the school’s National Education Union (NEU) representative. That year, the school appointed Mr Michael Earnshaw as the Deputy Head, a role which the Claimant had applied for.

He commenced this role on 1 September, but by December, a complaint was made about him by the school’s curriculum lead for English, Ms Jill Baker. The Claimant later attended a grievance meeting as Ms Baker’s union representative, during which the complaint was upheld. Mr Earnshaw had to apologise as a consequence.

The following year, Mr Earnshaw became the school’s headteacher, with effect from 1 September 2018. Later that month, he altered the school’s classroom observation protocol, leaving many of its teachers concerned. They raised these concerns with the Claimant, who, in turn, discussed the matter with Mr Earnshaw in a senior leadership meeting on 25 September. The headteacher attempted to pressure the union rep into disclosing who had raised concerns, but she refused.

Subsequently, Mr Earnshaw called for a meeting with the Claimant on 26 September. He handed her an “informal warning” and explained that it concerned her conduct during the previous senior leadership meeting. No disciplinary procedure was followed, and the employment tribunal believed this was influenced by the Claimant fulfilling her union duties.

Conflict Intensifies, Leading to Health Crisis

On 27 September, the Claimant was signed off work for two days after experiencing panic attacks. That same day, the NEU wrote to Mr Earnshaw, stating that his recent conduct was “outside of the protocol and could be seen as an attempt to deter trade union activity,” which was unlawful.l.

By 3 October, a meeting was held with the school’s NEU members, who voted against the headteacher’s classroom observation protocol plans. This led to weeks of failed negotiations, until Mr Earnshaw eventually conceded on 19 November, agreeing to provide five days’ notice for any such observations.

Then, in March 2019, the Claimant made suggestions during a senior leadership meeting concerning how the year two and three classrooms take lunch to limit noise. This led to complaints from a colleague who had not been privy to the meeting. As a result, the union representative raised a breach of confidentiality concern to Mr Earnshaw.

Unfortunately, this didn’t go as the Claimant probably anticipated. After Mr Earnshaw’s investigation, he stated that “her colleagues had raised several issues about her,” requiring a further investigation. The headteacher didn’t provide any context and caused the Claimant to experience a panic attack before being submitted to A&E.

Return to Work Undermined by Unexplained Disciplinary Action

From 18 March, the Claimant experienced work-related stress and took 48 working days off, returning on 17 June. However, rather than returning to her year three class, she undertook temporary “PPA duties” (a form of supply teaching) until the end of the school year. As the new year came around, she understandably expected to return to teaching in a class. However, this wasn’t the case, as Mr Earnshaw later decided to keep her on PPA duties through the Autumn term.

The Claimant was then off sick for a couple of days at the start of November with a chest infection. Upon her return, a colleague came to speak to her, disclosing that the headteacher had undertaken an observation without notice, which went against the arrangement that had been agreed to with the NEU. As the school’s union representative, the Claimant sought to discuss this with Mr Earnshaw, doing so that very same day.

Unfortunately, while the headteacher reluctantly agreed to comply with the union agreement, he became angry. By midday, he called the Claimant into a meeting without notice and informed her “that she was to be the subject of a misconduct investigation.” The Claimant wasn’t provided clarification concerning the accusations, only being told it was a “potential conduct issue.”

As a result, and in an effort to gain clarity, the union rep requested that Mr Earnshaw outline the nature of the allegations and explain the procedure that would be followed on 5 November. The headteacher responded the next day, but claimed he couldn’t provide any further information since the investigation was ongoing.

Support Plan Introduced for Union Representative

By 8 November, Mr Earnshaw informed the Claimant that disciplinary action would be withdrawn, but that a performance support plan would be introduced instead. The NEU queried the basis for this support plan on 10 November but received no response.

Five days later, a support plan meeting took place, during which significant concerns were raised about the Claimant’s teaching standards. These were used to justify its implementation. The plan outlined that the Claimant had nine weeks to show improvement. Mr Earnshaw was to assess her progress, and the matter would proceed to capability if satisfactory improvements weren’t seen.

The Claimant, perhaps unsurprisingly, chose not to sign the support plan. Then, on 18 November, she was again signed off work with work-related stress, never to return.

A Grievance is Raised

On 2 December, the Claimant submitted a grievance. She raised concerns about the headteacher’s actions and the proposed introduction of a support plan. In her view, Mr Earnshaw was misusing capability procedures to exert control because of her position with the NEU.

A grievance meeting followed on 31 January 2020, where the Claimant said she was being bullied due to her involvement as a union representative. Her NEU representative at the meeting, Ms Judith Elderkin, added that the school hadn’t followed the correct procedures concerning the support plan, since there hadn’t been an opportunity to negotiate or challenge it.

Nevertheless, the Claimant learned that her grievance had been unsuccessful on 24 February. She appealed this decision four days later, again challenging the support plan’s implementation and suggesting that it had arisen due to her trade union activities. Unfortunately, her appeal was dismissed on 9 April, and when she appealed to stage three in the grievance procedure, this was dismissed, too.

Union Representative Dismissed Before Initiating Tribunal Proceedings

After the grievance procedure concluded, Mr Earnshaw confirmed he wouldn’t stop the support plan. He held a stage one absence review meeting with the Claimant on 9 July, followed by stage two, three, and four capability meetings on 9 September, 7 October, and 8 December.

By stage four, Mr Earnshaw compiled a detailed absence record report. However, the tribunal found it inaccurate, focusing on capability rather than absences, and described it as “unbalanced,” “self-serving,” and “designed to ensure the Claimant’s dismissal.”

Two days later, on 10 December, the union representative received a letter informing her that she’d been dismissed with effect from 30 April 2021. It stated, “… we are satisfied that your manager has undertaken reasonable steps to try and help you to improve and sustain your attendance at work. Therefore, it was explained to you that regrettably, it was necessary in all the circumstances to terminate your employment.” She appealed this decision on 14 December, claiming that it was too harsh and that all alternative avenues hadn’t been explored, but this was dismissed on 16 March 2021.

Following her dismissal, the Claimant struggled to find work due to Mr Earnshaw providing instructions not to give her references. This caused her significant difficulties finding a new job, but she eventually secured an alternative role on 11 May 2021.

She began Acas early conciliation on 3 June and started employment tribunal proceedings on 28 June. At such time, she claimed unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for trade union activities, and detriment related to the same. She also claimed disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal reviewed the fairness of the Claimant’s dismissal from work. While the Respondent argued that sustained absence and lack of return prospects justified dismissal, the tribunal found otherwise.

It concluded that Mr Earnshaw had set the Claimant up to fail, driven by personal animosity after she challenged him as a union representative. This hostility continued after dismissal, when he provided poor references to block her future employment. With trade union activities clearly the primary dismissal reason, the tribunal ruled it automatically unfair.

Trade Union Detriment Claim Upheld

The tribunal then examined the Claimant’s claim of trade union detriment, focusing on three key actions: placing her on the capability process, enforcing the support plan, and dismissing her grievance. These were deemed punitive measures designed to force her out, either by resignation or dismissal, motivated by her union activities. As such, this claim was also upheld.

Disability Discrimination Claims Succeed

Finally, the tribunal considered disability discrimination claims relating to her stress-related mental health. The Respondent knew of her conditions from March 2019 to May 2021 but acted in ways that worsened them, causing stress-related sick leave, which ultimately resulted in her dismissal. Moreover, it was found that the Respondent failed to make any reasonable adjustments, further adding to the detriment she suffered. As a consequence, both of her disability discrimination claims succeeded.

Compensation Awarded to Union Representative

At a separate remedy hearing, the Claimant was awarded £370,563.53. Her compensation comprised, among other things, loss of earnings, injury to feelings, and a 25% Acas uplift.

Your Rights as a Trade Union Member

What Are Trade Union Activities?

Trade union activities include attending meetings, negotiating with management, representing members in grievances or disputes, and raising collective concerns. UK law entitles employees to take part in these activities, particularly outside working hours or during agreed facility time.

Can You Be Sacked for Being Part of a Union?

No. Dismissing an employee for union membership or activities is automatically unfair under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Even indirect actions, like targeting someone for performing union duties, can amount to unlawful detriment or unfair dismissal.

This was the case for the union representative discussed above, and the same would apply to others in similar circumstances. If you have experienced dismissal from work and believe it was unfair, contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists who can provide expert advice after a quick chat.

To begin, simply:

• Call 020 3397 3603
• Request a callback via our online form