Assaulted at work. No right to self-defence

Energize wrote: »

Criminal law takes precedence over civil law, if someone acts in genuine self defence it cannot be held to have breached a contract. The same principle holds generally for any actions taken to prevent crime or injury, this is to prevent citizens being discouraged from doing the legally right thing.

However I suspect the op is not quite telling it as it is.

Are you 100% sure on that? If this is your area of expertise then I'll happily defer to you, my totally non-expert opinion was the burden of proof for criminal action is much greater than civil (99vs 51%?) so civil action can be taken even if criminal action doesn't succeed (in proving guilt).

Bargainhunter69 wrote: »

Hi,
I work in a primary school but on the day in question I was not working but volunteering my football skills at an external venue with the school children. A parent of one of my players confronted me after we had lost (what a sin!) and threatened me verbally and non verbally. I had already put distance between us. He continued to rant and then threatened me again before he came towards my face. I instinctively pushed him away - it was actually as soft as it could have been on his chest.
No issue as I have acted in self-defence and the police agree and dealt with the parent.
Wrong - school say I am not allowed to push the parent and my union were rubbish. How did it become a work disciplinary case? I, like the police (and union) say it was a criminal matter and not an employment issue. School have actually put in writing that it is not their job to understand criminal law or what is acceptable retaliation regarding "self-defence"
Anyone with knowledge of the law (self-defence) feel free to advise. The local Diocese wont get into conversation and nor will the local authority which I think is shocking.
It is a clear open and shut case but sadly that's not the schools opinion. School also didn't ban the parent saying they followed legal advice. Anyone who is a governor of a school knows that you can ban a parent as long as you give them 14 days to respond.

Whilst there’s a possibility this is the work of our returning dilemma AI/ bot, there’s useful info in the replies that new readers might benefit from and I’d like to add my 2p too.

The OP doesn’t clarify a number of areas leaving people to make assumptions. For instance, in what capacity are they employed by the school? Principal? Teacher? Caretaker? Is the school run by a local authority or privately? Has the OP actually been disciplined? If so what sanction have they received? Was it a fair process? What was the event where the incident took place? In what capacity was the OP there. Who called the police? Why? How did the school learn of the incident?

I’m going to assume the OP, whilst at the event in a volunteering capacity was there to manage or coach the school team. The OP admits to pushing the parent before the parent could strike them. The OP has been through the schools disciplinary proces and the union were unable to persuade the school from disciplining them, I’m guessing the sanction is a warning or final warning.

As others have said, the OP is confusing criminal law with employment law. Maybe the OP should apply the rules of football to the situation. One player raises their hands against another player. Do the police get involved? Maybe to keep the peace. Is the referee allowed to award a free kick, yellow card or red card? Would telling the referee it’s not a criminal matter stop the referee making their decision?

In the same way, employment law has its own set of tests and sanctions. Given what the OP has revealed and guessing at the bits he hasn’t,I agree with the OP, it’s an open and shut case. The OP behaved wrongly whilst representing the school, or at least whilst in a leadership position with children. The OP has been sanctioned correctly, and I presume is still employed there. If so, the OP should be grateful the sanction was not dismissal (red card) as I think that would be within the range of reasonable sanctions open to a school in these circumstances.

OP, I would suggest you enroll on an anger management course based on your replies to others her, and ask your school to send you on a conflict resolution course. You have to learn from this incident, not continue to fight it, your combative instincts has got you into this mess.

Bargainhunter69 wrote: »

I am in the right, that wasn't the point.

Unfortunately that is exactly the point. As you say, teachers are not punchbags - but if the police became involved, the incident sounds far more serious than your rather dismissive 'I instinctively pushed him away - it was actually as soft as it could have been on his chest.'

Of course the school says you are not allowed to push a parent. I presume you describe your union as 'rubbish' because they agreed with the school.

Bargainhunter69 wrote: »

How did it become a work disciplinary case? I, like the police (and union) say it was a criminal matter and not an employment issue. School have actually put in writing that it is not their job to understand criminal law or what is acceptable retaliation regarding "self-defence"

It became a work disciplinary case because your behaviour did not meet the standards the school expected of a teacher (pity one can't discipline a parent for not meeting the standards expected of a father or mother). The school is correct in saying it is not their job to understand criminal law because this isn't about criminal law: it is about employment law, the school's reputation and most of all child safety. How would you have reacted if a child had threatened to hit you, or actually done so? Would you 'instinctively' have retaliated physically?

This probably all sounds fairly unsympathetic. You would be wrong to assume that is how it is meant. I think teachers and other school staff are subjected to behaviour from parents (and indeed children) which would goad most of us into something far stronger than a push!

Ozzuk wrote: »

Are you 100% sure on that? If this is your area of expertise then I'll happily defer to you, my totally non-expert opinion was the burden of proof for criminal action is much greater than civil (99vs 51%?) so civil action can be taken even if criminal action doesn't succeed (in proving guilt).

Civil action can be taken if no criminal action is taken against someone. But what I am saying is that a contract cannot override the right to self defense, such that someone who clearly acts in self defence can't be dismissed for misconduct, for example if someone a teacher was attacked with a knife and pushed them away the school couldn't turn around and say "you Should've used de escalation techniques".