Suspension Leads To Unfair Dismissal Case

Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth (High Court)

The High Court has confirmed that, even in cases involving serious employee misconduct, suspension should not be a ‘knee-jerk’, default reaction on the part of employers. Decisions to suspend that are not carefully considered, explained and properly documented can constitute a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the suspended employee to resign in response and claim constructive dismissal.

The employee, an experienced teacher, was accused of exercising unreasonable force towards one child on three separate occasions. Despite findings by the Head Teacher that any use of force had been reasonable, a letter of suspension was sent stating that this was a ‘neutral action’, ‘not a disciplinary sanction’ and that ‘the purpose of the suspension is to allow the investigation to be conducted fairly’. The employee subsequently resigned, claimed that the suspension was a repudiatory breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence and issued proceedings in the County Court.

The County Court found in favour of the employer, concluding that it was ‘bound’ to suspend in the circumstances. However, on appeal, the High Court considered that conclusion to be too simplistic, noting a substantial body of case law that states suspension should not be the default response to misconduct where alternative remedial measures may be possible. In this case it was found that there was:

1. no attempt to establish the employee’s account of the incidents;
2. no attempt to ascertain what was known by other members of staff before deciding to suspend the employee;
3. no evidence that an alternative to suspension was considered; and
4. the suspension letter did not explain why an investigation could only be carried out fairly if the employee were suspended.

These points collectively were enough for the High Court to conclude that the implied duty of trust and confidence had been breached.

Whilst this is an outcome which turned very much on its facts, it does highlight the prudence in employers carefully evaluating the individual circumstances before suspending employees. It is also indicative of a trend towards increasing judicial scrutiny over suspensions. It points to employers needing to review their disciplinary procedures to ensure checks are in place to prevent ‘knee jerk’ suspensions.

For further support with suspension, please contact your Heads HR Consultant on 0161 850 4343.