IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

OLA COLE
Claimant
AND
HARRIS ACADEMY
Respondent
_________________________
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
_________________________

1. The claimant was employed by the respondent from (start date) to 23 August
2019 as a Teacher of BTEC Business Studies Level 3.

2. The respondent is a school providing education in a range of courses for

pupils aged (insert) to (insert).

BTEC Business Studies Course

3. The respondent runs courses in Business Studies at BTEC Level and in this
regard works in partnership with an examining board called ‘Pearson‘
(formerly known as Edexcel).The respondent is approved as a centre by
Pearson for the purposes of running the Business Studies course in
accordance with Pearson’s specifications. In this regard Pearson (Edexcel)
issued a document known as the ‘Specification’ setting out how courses
should be run, the criteria which teaching staff should apply and what support
could be given the students and at what points.

4. The ‘BTEC Business Studies Course’ consisted of a range of units of study on

business related topics. The course tutor was responsible to teach students
relevant underlying principles, set topics for further study and mark the work
done by students. The course tutor was only allowed to support the students
up to the point that they received their assignments. After this point the course
tutor could not give any feedback on the work and was limited to giving
‘direction and formative assessment’ only to ensure that the final work
produced was the student’s own independent work.
5. The course tutor would mark the final coursework and then pass it to another
teacher who acted as the ‘Internal Verifier’ (IV). This officer would review the
marked work of the course tutor and if satisfied with the marking the officer
would then pass the course work on to Pearson to award the appropriate
certification of the results.

The Claimant’s Delivery of the BTEC Business Studies Course

6. The Claimant taught a number of students on the BTEC Business Studies

Course.

7. The following structure was in place in relation to reporting lines:

 Rebecca Ile Smith (Headteacher)
 Gillian Hudson (Deputy Headteacher)
 Parvinder Aujla (Head of Business Studies)
 Arzu Sarimaden (Business Studies lead and Internal Verifier)

8. When the claimant commenced employment with the respondent she was
given an ‘Assessment Plan’ by her former line manager Mr. Kennedy. The
Assessment Plan which set out what the students on her course were to be
taught, over what timescales and key milestones for the course delivery. The
Assessment Plan also included details of when ‘feedback’ would be given. Mr.
Kennedy was replaced by Ms. Aulja in December 2018. The Claimant
provided Ms. Aujla with a copy of her existing Assessment Plan upon Ms.
Auja’s request and Ms. Aujla signed the plan off. The Claimant taught the
BTEC Business Studies course in strict adherence to the plan. It is also to be
noted that the Claimant’s direct line manager was Ms. Sarimaden and they
had weekly 1-1 meetings.

9. In December 2018 the claimant marked a large number of coursework with

distinctions. The coursework was passed to Ms. Sarimaden as the Internal
Verifier who approved the marking and passed the coursework onto Pearson.

10. As the results were higher than the national average Pearson reviewed the
work submitted. Pearson approved the marks awarded in all but one case
which was (outline what happened with the one which was returned). Pearson
were concerned that course work was being marked in accordance with its
criteria and accordingly one of its officers attended the respondent premises
to carry out a review of samples of coursework from the Business Studies
Course on 23 My 2019 and (date) July 2019. On both occasions the officer
from Pearson discovered instances of plagiarism and also concluded that the
marking had been over generous. Students affected were required to retake
their coursework. In relation to the ‘overgenerous’ marking the officer from
Pearson had a discussion with the Claimant and (name of other officer
 present) conceded that the Claimant’s making had been correct and withdrew
her criticism of the mark awarded.

11. On (date) the respondent removed the Claimant from teaching the BTEC
Business Studies Course in view of the concerns raised about her marking of
the coursework and that she had been given inappropriate feedback to
students. This decision was unreasonable in view of the following
considerations:

a. the Claimant had been following established practice at the respondent

which was known, approved and promoted by the respondent

b. the coursework which was being questioned had been assessed and
approved by Ms. Aujla the Internal Verifier (and no action has been
taken against Ms. Aujla in relation to the assessed coursework)

c. the respondent did not provide the Claimant with any plagiarism tools
to identify ‘plagiarism’ in student work. As such the Claimant was left to
spot identify instances of plagiarism from a visual review only of
student work. The Claimant had a large volume of coursework to
assess and it was easy to miss plagiarism in the text. Ms. Aujla the
Internal Verifier had also not spotted any plagiarism in the marked
coursework.

12. The Claimant has learned that in April 2019 Ms. Aujla (Head of Business
Studies) alleged to Ms. Ile Smith (Headteacher) that the Claimant had been
helping students and editing students work for them. In turn Ms. Ile Smith
reported the Claimant on 29 April 2019 to Pearson for professional
malpractice. For reasons unknown Ms. Ile Smith did not inform the Claimant
that she had received the allegations or that she had reported the Claimant to
Pearson for professional malpractice. Ms. Sarimaden had also not raised the
allegations with the Claimant at any time during their weekly 1 to 1 meetings.

13. Pearson took the allegations seriously and wrote to the Claimant care of the
respondent by letter dated26 September 2019 inviting the Claimant to
respond to the allegations by 9 October 2019. In that letter Pearson indicated
that there would be a meeting of the Malpractice Committee on (date) and
they would take account of the Claimant’s representations. Ms. Ile Smith sat
on the letter from Pearson and did not send the letter to the Claimant until
(date) knowing full well that the Claimant faced serious consequences for her
professional status. The Malpractice Committee of Pearson met on (date) and
determined that (outcome of meeting). The Claimant was devastated by the
outcome of the Malpractice Committee and shocked and disappointed that the
respondent had deliberately failed to notify her of the Pearson investigation to
give the Claimant an opportunity to defend herself.
14. The claimant resigned on 23 August 2019 in view of how she had been
treated by the respondent.

15. In parallel the claimant faced ongoing proceedings before Pearson’s

Malpractice Committee. The Malpractice Committee suspended its initial
decision in view of the fact that the Claimant had not been given an
opportunity to respond. The Claimant eventually submitted a detailed
response to the allegations and the Malpractice Committee found that the
Claimant had acted in accordance with the respondent’s procedures but that
these procedures could not override the Specification guidelines of Pearson.
The Malpractice Committee issued the Claimant with a written warning and a
direction that she undergo training in Pearson’s guidelines. Accordingly any
‘fault’ on the claimant’s part arose from her following the procedures of the
respondent. It was accordingly unreasonable for the respondent to have
removed her from her position as a BTEC teacher in the circumstances.

Constructive Dismissal

16. The Claimant was constructively dismissed and seeks a declaration and
compensation.

Term

17. The respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence

Particulars of breach of implied

18. The respondent’s breach of the implied term of trust and confidence included
the following matters:

a. by failing to notify the Claimant that an allegation had been made

against of giving inappropriate feedback to students

b. by failing to notify the Claimant that she had been reported to Pearson
for professional malpractice

c. by failing to pass on the letter of 26 September 2019 from Pearson to

the Claimant to enable the Claimant to respond to the allegations she
was facing

d. by removing the Claimant from the post of teacher of the BTEC

Business Studies course when the Claimant had been following the
respondent’s own internal procedures
 e. by failing to take account of the fact that the impugned coursework had
been verified by the respondent’s own Internal Verifier

19. The Claimant resigned in response to the various breaches and did so
promptly