Mr B Randall v Trent College Limited and others

Mr B Randall v Trent College Limited & others 2600288/2020

Here is a short summary of the case Mr B Randall v Trent College Limited & others:

Facts

Mr B Randall (the Claimant) was employed as the Chaplain at Trent College Limited (the School/Respondent), an Anglican foundation co-educational independent school. The Claimant alleged he was discriminated against on the grounds of his religion and religious/other beliefs, and that he was unfairly dismissed.

In May 2019, the Claimant delivered two sermons to pupils aged 11-18 about 'competing ideologies'. These sermons, prompted by a pupil's question about LGBT+ acceptance in a Christian school and the Claimant's anger over the School's adoption of the "Educate and Celebrate" (E&C) programme, caused significant upset among pupils, staff, and parents. Complaints indicated that the sermons were interpreted as promoting the idea that it was "wrong to be LGBT+" and that religious belief allowed for discrimination. This reaction was similar to complaints received after earlier sermons given by the Claimant in 2016, following which he had been advised by senior pastoral staff about the potential harm to vulnerable LGBT+ pupils and the need for age-appropriate content in an environment allowing for discussion.

Following the 2019 sermons, the School initiated an investigation. Concerns were raised about the Claimant's lack of empathy for pupils' welfare, his belief that Canon law took priority, and his negative views towards E&C. He was suspended and subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct on 30 August 2019. Reasons for dismissal included wilfully neglecting pupil welfare, using his position to impose undermining views, inappropriate content for the age group, offensive behaviour, and damaging the School's reputation. The School's Designated Safeguarding Lead also made a referral to Prevent (due to concerns about radicalisation) and a referral to LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer).

The Claimant appealed his dismissal, and the appeal panel reinstated him on 26 September 2019, downgrading the sanction to a final written warning. His reinstatement was conditional on twenty management instructions, including pre-review of sermon texts, age-appropriateness, and not publicly undermining school initiatives or expressing views likely to cause offence. The Claimant was placed on furlough in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was subsequently dismissed by reason of redundancy on 10 November 2020. The School's rationale for redundancy was driven by significant financial pressures due to COVID-19 and a strategic decision that faith provision could be delivered without an employed Chaplain.

The Claimant brought claims for direct discrimination, harassment, victimisation, unfair dismissal, and indirect discrimination (later withdrawn).

Held

The Employment Tribunal unanimously dismissed all of the Claimant's claims.

Direct Discrimination

The Tribunal found that the Claimant's treatment (including his dismissal in August 2019) was not because of his beliefs themselves or their mere manifestation, but rather due to the objectionable manner in which he manifested those beliefs. This included the time, place, audience, and inflammatory language used in the sermons. The Tribunal determined that the School's actions were justified by its legitimate objectives of safeguarding pupils from harm and complying with the mandatory Independent School Standards Regulations (ISSR). The previous attempt to pastorally guide the Claimant in 2016 and his subsequent disregard for that advice were key factors. The Tribunal stated that the Claimant's right to manifest his beliefs in the manner he did could not outweigh the School's duty to safeguard pupils. The imposition of management instructions upon his reinstatement was also justified to prevent repeat behaviour.

Harassment

The Tribunal found that the alleged unwanted conduct, including the referral to Prevent and the management restrictions, was not related to the Claimant's beliefs or their manifestation, but to the objectionable way he manifested them. Even if it were related, the Tribunal found it would not be reasonable to consider it as harassment given the Claimant's conduct, his disregard for previous advice, and the legitimate safeguarding concerns. The failure to include the Claimant in E&C discussions and the non-reinstatement of his academic timetable were also found not to be related to his beliefs.

Victimisation

The Tribunal rejected the claim that the non-reinstatement of the Claimant's academic timetable or his dismissal by reason of redundancy amounted to victimisation. The non-reinstatement of the 2019/20 timetable predated his protected act (issuing the first claim) and for 2020/21, it was due to genuine reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the School's decision to dispense with spare staffing. The dismissal by redundancy was found to be genuine, driven by severe financial pressures and a strategic decision to deliver faith provision without an employed Chaplain, not as an "artificially orchestrated" act due to his prior claim.

Unfair Dismissal

The dismissal was found to be by genuine redundancy, as the requirement for a Chaplain had ceased or diminished due to financial pressures and a re-evaluation of faith provision. The Tribunal found it was appropriate to place the Claimant in a pool of one given his unique role. The consultation process was deemed genuine and meaningful, and the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.

Jurisdiction

The Tribunal noted that the question of whether earlier alleged acts of discrimination/harassment formed part of a "continuing act" was academic, given the claims failed, but indicated they would likely have found them to be part of a continuing act.

Comment

This case provides a clear articulation of the distinction between holding a religious belief and the manner of its manifestation in employment law, particularly within an educational setting. The Tribunal reiterated that while the Claimant's beliefs were protected, the School was justified in taking action due to the "objectionable manifestation" of those beliefs, specifically their impact on vulnerable pupils and the School's regulatory obligations.

The judgment strongly emphasizes the paramount importance of safeguarding duties and compliance with regulatory standards (ISSR and "Valuing All God's Children" guidance) in schools. The Tribunal found that the Claimant's approach to his sermons, including the age-inappropriateness, lack of debate, and perceived inflammatory language, directly conflicted with the School's duties to foster mutual respect, tolerance, and protect pupil welfare. The Claimant's previous warnings in 2016 and his subsequent disregard for advice were crucial in establishing the justification for the School's actions in 2019.

Furthermore, the case demonstrates how a Tribunal assesses the proportionality of an employer's actions when an individual's ECHR rights (Articles 9 and 10 on freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and expression) are engaged. The Tribunal balanced the Claimant's rights against the legitimate interests of the School in safeguarding children and complying with regulations, concluding that the latter outweighed the former in the specific context of the sermons.

Finally, the ruling confirms that genuine business reasons, such as financial pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic and strategic decisions about the future structure of roles, can legitimately lead to redundancy, even if an employee has previously brought a claim. The Tribunal meticulously analyzed the sequence of events, finding no evidence that the redundancy was "artificially orchestrated" or linked to the Claimant's protected act. The School's post-dismissal inspection results, indicating excellent personal development and adherence to British Values, further supported the School's position regarding its ability to provide faith provision without a Chaplain.