City of Liverpool College has been ordered to pay more than £100,000 in compensation to two former managers who were unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about preferential treatment towards the principal’s relative.
The employment tribunal ruled that Kerry Dowd and Stephanie Doyle, who were head and deputy head of the college’s digital academy, were forced out of their roles in early 2022 after falling “out of favour” with principal Elaine Bowker.
Both had raised issues regarding what they described as “bespoke requests” and “preferential treatment” for Bowker’s relative, who was a student at the college. The tribunal accepted their claims and determined that their treatment by the college was unfair.
In its remedy decision published on 3 July, the tribunal awarded Doyle £57,951 and Dowd £47,383. The awards included an uplift of up to 25 percent for the college’s failure to comply with the ACAS code of practice, with the tribunal noting that their suspensions were based on a “sham reason”.
 |
Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.
|
Tribunal criticises safeguarding allegations
The tribunal’s findings were critical of the college’s handling of the case. It concluded that the college fabricated allegations against the two managers, accusing them of breaching safeguarding protocols. These accusations were described as “highly damaging” and lacking any proper foundation.
In its earlier press statement, the college claimed it had identified and investigated a potential safeguarding issue involving the falsification of an attendance register. It stated that its HR processes were followed in full.
However, Judge Barker found that this statement contradicted the tribunal’s conclusions. He noted that the statement was presented as fact, even though the tribunal had not made such findings. The judge raised concerns over whether the statement could be seen as “something akin to contempt of court” given that proceedings were still underway at the time it was issued.
The tribunal stated that no safeguarding issue had been identified or investigated. It found that Dowd and Doyle were threatened with a safeguarding investigation to pressure them into resigning. The panel said the college knew such an investigation would severely harm their careers.
Compensation capped at maximum level
Dowd and Doyle were each awarded the maximum statutory cap for unfair dismissal. The tribunal described their suspensions and subsequent treatment as a deliberate effort by the college to force them out of their positions.
The judgment found that the college had failed to engage properly with the concerns raised by Dowd and Doyle and instead used the threat of a safeguarding investigation to coerce their resignations. During the tribunal hearing, the college’s representative denied responsibility for the press statement. Despite the tribunal’s findings, the college’s board stood by its actions.
Tony Cobain, chair of City of Liverpool College, stated, “The board remains entirely satisfied that its witnesses exercised their responsibilities appropriately throughout the process, acting with honesty, openness and integrity.”
Alessandra Pacelli is a journalist and author contributing to HRreview, where she covers topics including labour market trends, employment costs, and workplace issues.
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
