The Basildon Academies v Amadi
This case concerns whether an employee is required to report an allegation of misconduct against them under an implied contractual term, where there is no express term requiring them to do so.
Amadi was employed by the Academies from 2008 and following a reorganisation in 2011 worked part-time for two days a week, Thursday and Friday, as a Cover Supervisor. In September 2012, Amadi was offered and accepted a zero hours contract to work at Richmond upon Thames College on a Monday and Wednesday. Amadi did not disclose this to the Academies, breaching an express term of his contract.
On 19th December 2012, Amadi was suspended by the College following an allegation of sexual assault from a female pupil. The allegation was reported to the police and Amadi was arrested and bailed, though there was no prosecution.
In March 2013, the police contacted the Academies to enquire about Amadi’s previous employment and informed them of the suspension and allegations against him. Amadi was then suspended by his employers. In July 2013, a disciplinary hearing was conducted by the Academies and it was concluded that Amadi deliberately not informing the employers about his employment at the College and the allegations of sexual misconduct were both acts of gross misconduct. He was dismissed with effect from the 22nd July 2013.
Amadi brought a claim of unfair dismissal. Though his contract contained various clauses on safeguarding, a Code of Conduct and disclosure of criminal convictions, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that there was no express term requiring employees to report allegations which they did not believe to be true and had no reasonable grounds to believe were true.
The employers then tried to rely on there being an implied term to report allegations. However, the EAT were of the opinion that there is no law which provides an implied obligation for an employee to disclose an allegation of impropriety, where there is no express contractual term requiring him to do so. Therefore, as there is no implied obligation there was no breach of contract by failing to disclose the allegation made by the pupil.