The claimant is a qualified teacher and was registered on the NI Substitute Teachers Register. The claimant began working at the respondent school in October 2015 and in various roles until June 2019.  The particular roles were agreed with the principal verbally and only one (out of a whole range of engagements) was put in writing. There were a range of issues alleged by the claimant which centred upon the fact that she was asked to write reports for pupils having only been in the class for a matter of days, having been asked to be the co-ordinator for the World Around Us aspect of the curriculum and the fact that she was unsuccessful in a recruitment exercise for a job in the school which took place at the end of the 18/19 Academic Year. Instead, a relation of the principal was successful for the role which the claimant had called into question. It must be noted that the principal was not involved in the recruitment exercise.  

Following the end of the 18/19 Academic Year, the principal contacted the claimant asking if she was available to take on substitute cover for the next academic year.  There was never any response from the claimant. It must also be noted that there was no resignation or any letter outlining that she would not be returning to the school. It was clear, though, that the claimant was disappointed in not being successful in the recruitment exercise. 

The claimant brought a constructive dismissal claim as well as claims relating to the failure to have a written statement of particulars. The constructive dismissal claim was based upon the various allegations outlined above and that it was a breach of contract in that she was being asked to do more than expected or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.  In examining each of these allegations it was held that there was no breach of contract and taking them together there was no breach of the implied term. This meant that the claimant did not discharge the burden of proof. 

On the issue of written statements of particulars it was found that none had been provided.  This was not disputed by the school principal.  The respondent contended that the Jordanstown Agreement (which outlines the general terms and conditions of employment for all teachers) would suffice in this regard.  This was not agreed by the Tribunal considering the range of information that must be included in a written statement, including when the employment began for instance.  It was found that as the claimant did not succeed in her claim then the Tribunal would be unable to make an award for a failure to provide a written statement of particulars. 

Practical Lessons

The position of substitute teachers is one that sits uneasily when looked at alongside the general rules of employment.  The flexibility that operates to the extent that they may operate on a day-by-day basis to situations which actually involve covering for a whole academic year should be treated differently.  The latter requires greater regulation and the fact that there is no written statement of particulars in this case is concerning.  The constructive dismissal claim was an odd one considering that there was no letter of resignation and the role had come to an end.  Despite the respondent ‘winning’ it may be such that the way in which substitute teachers are engaged and overseen may be examined.