An employment tribunal has upheld the decision to dismiss an East Lancashire primary school headteacher, after allegations she came to work smelling of alcohol and behaved erratically and forgetfully were proven.

Vivien Baker began working as headteacher at St Charles RC Primary School in Rishton in 2010.

The school is voluntarily controlled and has around 120 pupils and 26 teachers.

In December 2018, a cause for concern document, 23 pages in length, was filed against Mrs Baker citing six allegations between 2017 and 2018.

The document was signed by 14 staff members and alleged that Mrs Baker had:

  • Regularly attended school smelling of alcohol
  • Had insisted the deputy headteacher leave the junior playground to have a photo taken, leaving 120 children unsupervised for 10 minutes
  • Publicly berated the deputy headteacher when he challenged her about the decision to leave the playground unsupervised
  • She was often disorganised and regularly conducted herself in an irrational/erratic/unprofessional manner
  • She made comments to members of staff that two other members of staff were in a relationship and made comments suggesting this directly to the two members of staff
  • On March 6, 2020, while under investigation and suspended for the above five allegations, visited the current school of a former member of staff and disclosed confidential information in respect of the allegations subject to investigation, which were in breach of the term of the claimant’s suspension.

A report from the tribunal, which was held in February, stated that informally the school had been made aware of a complaint of Mrs Baker smelling of alcohol previously in 2016, but as it was informal no action was taken by the respondent.

Following the submission of the cause for concern documents, in January 2019, a school governor contacted Mrs Baker telling her an investigation would be carried out and advised it would warrant suspension, however he later advised her to stay off sick rather than be formally suspended.

The claimant then got a sick note from her GP and was then informed of the allegations against her, with her access to work emails ceasing at the end of January.

However, she then submitted a bullying and harassment grievance against the governors, which halted the investigation into her conduct for several months.

This was not upheld, but she appealed, and the appeal was not upheld.

She was officially suspended in July 2019 and during the continuing investigation stated staff at the school were deliberately colluding and lying as they wanted her removed because they would find someone else easier to work with, and the other staff had a grudge to bear against her.

She denied all the allegations against her, but admitted to leaving the children for a short period of time, and then lockdown hit, preventing the investigation continuing.

When it was eventually able to recommence, in March 2021, a seven day disciplinary hearing was carried out where it was decided, in May 2021, she should be dismissed from her position.

The dismissal letter it stated: “The committee is concerned that throughout the disciplinary process you have maintained these allegations are the result of collusions between a substantial number of staff, governors and local authority.

“There is no credible evidence to support your beliefs and we are concerned you have made unfounded allegations and unprofessional comments about the witnesses and investigating officers.

“The committee believes your actions constitute gross misconduct. The committee also believes this has brought about a fundamental breach of the trust and confidence the governing board is entitled to place in you and therefore, the decisions of the committee is your contract of employment will be terminated with immediate effect without notice or payment in lieu of notice.”

Mrs Baker appealed the dismissal and this came to be heard in May 2022 but was not successful.

Employment Judge Dennehy, in concluding the tribunal hearing, said: “In considering whether it was credible so many of the claimant’s colleagues could be persuaded to collude against the claimant by making false allegations of misconduct, I find the claimant was guilty of the misconduct as set out in the allegations and these allegations raised serious safeguarding concerns regarding the safety of the children and welfare of the staff, and this was sufficient for the respondent to justify dismissal without notice.”