Employment Tribunal Advice needed please

SarEl

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

PS - I notes SarEl's name mentioned. I haven't visited the other forum or read what she has said. It is perfectly possible that she has given a different reasoning (she and I have often differed in our legal reasoning - in employment law there is often more than one road to a destination) .... but I'd bet my house that she came to the same conclusion as me - that the tribunal was entitled to conclude that the dismissal was fair.

We have differed at times. That is why there is a legal profession.

I didn't differ from this conclusion although I believe I haven't yet used a term that incvolves houses. I do concur that the dismissal was fair in law, and that is all that matters.

flashnazia

cquinn60 wrote: »

I have to correct you on something SarEl. At my appeal hearing I asked if taking the boys to football was a Child Protection issue and they emphatically said it was not - I have the minutes where they say it was not a Child Protection issue.

Child protection issue or not, you blatantly ignored a reasonable management instruction, seven letters no less.

I'm sorry but I agree with the others. You gave them a valid reason to dismiss you I'm afraid.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Wasn't me - honest Guv!!

Seriously though, I'm not a member of the other forum despite several invitations to join. However I do occasionally suggest poster's here seek SarEl advice for complex issues.

I am never sure. Some people reuse the same user name, some don't, and I few have said they'd have to shoot me before disclosing who they are! It's all very violent!

SarEl

cquinn60 wrote: »

I have to correct you on something SarEl. At my appeal hearing I asked if taking the boys to football was a Child Protection issue and they emphatically said it was not - I have the minutes where they say it was not a Child Protection issue.

Refusing to desist contact with chidren when instructed otherwise, regardless of what they said, IS a child protection issue. You could have been arrested! You are a teacher. You know that. And it raises serious questions, no matter what your explanation was, about why you refused to obey the instruction. Surely you can see that? If you can't, I have only two words to say that really should make the point - Jimmy Savile. When you are told that you should not have contact with children by someone who is legally in loco parentis, you shoud obey. Whether that is their parent or the school or someone else. You dug tiis hole, don't dig it any further. Regardless of whether the allegations against you the first, second or thirs time were true, if you had contacted my children after being suspended from your position and being instructed not to - well let's just say that the school being sued would have been the least of your problems. You seem to be oblivious to the implications of what you did. And you say that these were "disadvantaged children"? Did it never once occur to you how dangerous your actions were given the circumstances?

Sambucus_Nigra

SarEl wrote: »

I am never sure. Some people reuse the same user name, some don't, and I few have said they'd have to shoot me before disclosing who they are! It's all very violent!

Yeah sorry 'bout that. But that's my way.

eamon

Yes she did and I agree.
To the OP in most cases of David v Goliath, Goliath usually wins. Please take the advice from SarEl on board and try your utmost to put this event to bed. It is easy for me and all the other posters to say this (I'm not in your shoes) but you need to quickly forge a new life for yourself. As SarEl has mentioned in the other forum you are intelligent, erudite etc use these aspects of your character and you will find a new path for yourself.
Best of luck for the future.

cquinn60

SarEl

The parents asked me to continue taking the boys because they couldn't. I tried to find someone else to chaperone them but could not.

zzzLazyDaisy

SarEl wrote: »

We have differed at times. That is why there is a legal profession.

I didn't differ from this conclusion although I believe I haven't yet used a term that incvolves houses. I do concur that the dismissal was fair in law, and that is all that matters.

Hi SarEl....

Good to know I didn't lose my house on the bet

Dx

Pricivius

cquinn60 wrote: »

SarEl

The parents asked me to continue taking the boys because they couldn't. I tried to find someone else to chaperone them but could not.

I'm afraid this makes no difference. Would they have asked you if they knew you would lose your job? Did you tell them the school had warned you 7 times that you were not allowed to? Honourable though your actions may have been towards these two boys, you were on suspension and were not allowed to have contact with them.

zzzLazyDaisy

cquinn60 wrote: »

I have to correct you on something SarEl. At my appeal hearing I asked if taking the boys to football was a Child Protection issue and they emphatically said it was not - I have the minutes where they say it was not a Child Protection issue.

OP, I think you are being deliberately disingenuous.

Regardless of what was said at the appeal regarding it being a Child Protection issue or not, that is just semantics - it most definitely was a Safe-guarding issue, and I do not believe with all your years in the teaching profession, that you did not realise this. You may choose not to accept it, but that is entirely different.

But even that is irrelevant.

Bottom line.

You were instructed by your employer not to breach the terms of your suspension (which your employer was entitled to set, and which did not differ from those of any other employer in this situation). You took a deliberate and considered decision to ignore those instructions which could not have been made clearer - and in fact were repeated seven times.

Either you are so arrogant that you think your employer cannot tell you what to do; have delusions that you are untouchable; or are just plain stupid.

I don't think you are stupid.