The innocent touch – where a lack of clear guidelines and policies makes a dismissal more likely to be unfair

Posted on 23rd April 2025 by Streets Employment Law


Image to represent The innocent touch – where a lack of clear guidelines and policies makes a dismissal more likely to be unfair

A school inspector dismissed for brushing water off a pupil’s head won his unfair dismissal claim against OFSTED.  Mr. Hewston worked as a Social Care Regulatory Inspector and, on the 8th of October 2019, during a school inspection, he brushed water off the head and touched the shoulder of a young boy who had been caught in a rainstorm. The school reported the incident to OFSTED as a case of ‘inappropriate touching’ in an 11-page letter.

Disciplinary proceedings were instituted, and he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, despite his hitherto immaculate disciplinary record. Throughout the disciplinary process, Mr. Hewston maintained that his conduct was appropriate, even though he would not have done it again due to the trouble it had caused him. Mr. Hewston brought proceedings against OFSTED for both unfair and wrongful dismissal, both of which were dismissed. However, he successfully appealed at a tribunal, which found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed, as OFSTED did not have a policy in place prohibiting physical contact with a child, nor any disciplinary rules defining touching as gross misconduct.

Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996 gives employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and the absence of published guidance or disciplinary rules on physical contact is dispositive. Indeed, the lack of any such guidance would result in the claimant not knowing that what he was doing was “so seriously wrong as to justify dismissal”.

The decision also makes it clear that a person cannot be dismissed because they did not show the ‘right’ reaction and insight during a disciplinary hearing. The fact that Mr. Hewston would never act the same way because of the trouble it caused him, rather than because he admits his action was ‘wrong’, is irrelevant; the salient point being that he would not do it again.

Employers must ensure that they have the right guidance and policies in place if a certain form of conduct is deemed inappropriate in their field; otherwise, any subsequent dismissal could be regarded as unfair. Your employees must be able to know what behaviours are reasonably expected from them.


No Advice

The content produced and presented by Streets is for general guidance and informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal, tax, investment, financial or other advice. Furthermore, it should not be considered a recommendation or an offer to sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities or other form of financial asset. The information provided by Streets is of a general nature and is not specific for any individual or entity. Appropriate and tailored advice or independent research should be obtained before making any such decisions. Streets does not accept any liability for any loss or damage which is incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of obtaining Streets' visual or audible content.

Information

The content used by Streets has been obtained from or is based on sources that we believe to be accurate and reliable. Although reasonable care has been taken in gathering the necessary information, we cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information we publish and we accept no liability for any errors or omissions in material. You should always seek specific advice prior to making any investment, legal or tax decisions.


Expert insight and news straight
to your inbox

Related Articles


Employment Restrictions After Termination: Be Cautious

Kau Media Group (KMG) Ltd. sought to enforce two post-termination employment restriction (PTRs) contained in a contract of employment to restrict Mr. Hart, a former employee, from working for his proposed new employer, MiSmile Media Ltd. (MML). Mr.


Be wary of the legitimacy of post-termination employment restrictions – they may not be reasonable or enforceable

Kau Media Group (KMG) Ltd. sought to enforce two post-termination employment restriction (PTRs) contained in a contract of employment to restrict Mr. Hart, a former employee, from working for his proposed new employer, MiSmile Media Ltd. (MML). Mr.


Beware of rushing to judgement before terminating employment.

A Tribunal has ruled that a deputy security manager was unfairly dismissed, despite performing “no prescribed tasks” while ‘working from home’, many hundreds of miles from his place of work. Mr. Kitaruth travelled from London to Cornwall

You might also be interested in...