City of Liverpool staffers awarded £100k over principal’s relative controversy

A college that unfairly dismissed two managers after they raised concerns about a relative of the principal being given special treatment has been ordered to pay over £100,000 in compensation.

City of Liverpool College was found to have forced Kerry Dowd and Stephanie Doyle to resign in early 2022 after they “fell out of favour” with principal Elaine Bowker.

In March, the tribunal ruled in favour of the two ex-staff members, who were employed as the head and deputy head of the college’s digital academy (DA) nearly four years ago.

The tribunal accepted the allegations that Bowker expected them to give “preferential treatment” and adhere to “bespoke requests” for her relative, who was enrolled on a course there.

In a remedy judgment published yesterday, the tribunal unanimously decided to award the two ex-staffers the total “maximum” compensation available.

Doyle was awarded a total £57,951 and Dowd won £47,383 after the judge made extra tax provisions, FE Week understands.

The documents show the college failed to comply with the ACAS code of practice “at all” as Dowd and Doyle’s suspension was for a “sham reason” so the judge awarded an up to 25 per cent uplift to the compensation.

Each was awarded the maximum statutory cap for unfair dismissal.

College statement to media ‘directly contradicted’ tribunal

The tribunal decision said that the college’s reasoning for Dowd and Doyle’s suspensions were “highly damaging” and had “fabricated” allegations that the two had breached safeguarding protocols.

The college’s statement to the press from March said that a “potential safeguarding issue regarding the falsification of an attendance register was identified, logged and subsequently, investigated”. 

It also said: “The falsification of this official documentation was deemed as a potential safeguarding issue and as such, the college’s HR processes and procedures were subsequently duly followed.”

Judge Barker said that the statement “directly contradicted ” his findings and considered whether it amounted to “something akin to contempt of court” as proceedings were ongoing.

“It is drafted as if the [college’s] version of events were matters of fact, even matters of fact found by the tribunal. They were not,” the document said.

It continued: “We found there was no identification of a safeguarding issue affecting either claimant; it was not investigated, and no process was followed. We found that they threatened the claimants with a possible safeguarding investigation without any proper reason for doing so, to make them resign, which they did. 

“We found that the respondent effectively knew that the claimants would do anything to avoid a safeguarding investigation, due to the damage that this would inflict on their careers.”

The college’s representative told the judge they did not write the statement.

City of Liverpool College chair, Tony Cobain, said: “The board remains entirely satisfied that its witnesses exercised their responsibilities appropriately throughout the process, acting with honesty, openness, and integrity.

“The board would like to thank the college’s dedicated staff for their continued efforts to ensure the college remains a pioneering place for students to learn and for staff to proudly work.”