Head teacher awarded over £100,000 after she was unfairly sacked

A primary school headmistress who was sacked and accused of assault after tapping her own toddler's hand while he played with a bottle of hand sanitiser has been awarded more than £100,000.

Shelly-Ann Malabver-Goulbourne was trying to get her three-year-old to stop playing with the bottle in her office when she used two fingers to attract his attention, an employment tribunal heard.

The incident was witnessed by the teacher in charge of child safety who accused her of hurting her son and filed an official complaint. Police officers were called in and the head as suspended.

Despite the police ruling that her actions were 'reasonable chastisement' by a parent, Ms Malabver-Goulbourne, 46, was found guilty of gross misconduct and sacked.

Yet an employment judge concluded there was no evidence that she had committed 'physical chastisement or an assault' and ruled her dismissal unfair.

Former head of Northwold Primary School in Hackney (pictured) has been awarded more than £100,000 for unfair dismissal

Now, she has won £102,328 in compensation following her unfair dismissal case.

Ms Malabver-Goulbourne was the head of Northwold Primary School in Hackney, east London which is run by the Arbor Academy Trust, where she had been a teacher for 'many years'.

She first joined in 2005 as a teacher before being promoted to the head of the school in 2017.

The incident that led to her sacking took place on January 17, 2022, the tribunal heard, when Ms Malabver-Goulbourne was working late in her office.

'It was around 6.20pm and [Ms Malabver-Goulbourne] was packing up her things to go home after having a meeting with Ms Bhagwandas, the designated lead for safeguarding,' the hearing was told.

'[Her] two children who attended the school were in her offices with her, waiting for her to take them home. [Her] youngest child, her son J, who was 3 years old at the time, was in the room, as was her 11-year-old daughter.

'J took up a bottle of hand sanitiser which was on a table. [Her] daughter told her that he had squirted some to the floor. [Ms Malabver-Goulbourne] took the sanitiser out of his hand.'

Employment Judge Julia Jones said: 'I find it likely that she then bent down to his level to speak to him about why he should not be playing with hand sanitiser.

'When she did so he turned his face away from her and she tapped him with two fingers on the back of his hand to get his attention, so that he would look at her to hear what she was saying.'

Two weeks earlier the toddler had got hand sanitiser in his eye, the tribunal heard.

Shelly-Ann Malabver-Goulbourne was trying to get her three-year-old to stop playing with a bottle of hand sanitizer. Pictured: File photo of hand sanitizer

'It was with the knowledge of that earlier experience that [Ms Malabver-Goulbourne] wanted to speak to him again to ensure that he understood that hand sanitiser was not a toy that he should be playing with.'

Ms Bhagwandas then told the head teacher that she should not have hurt her son and that she should have spoken to him instead.

Ms Malabver-Goulbourne replied that she had not hurt her son as all she had done was tap him with two fingers to get his attention.

However, Ms Bhagwandas was 'unhappy' with her response and completed a 'cause for concern' form to report a 'safeguarding incident'.

'In it she reported that she had witnessed [Ms Malabver-Goulbourne] smack J on the hand,' the tribunal heard.

'She also stated that before doing so, [she] had told J that she was going to smack him and expressed disregard for the Ms Bhagwandas' presence in the office.

'Ms Bhagwandas reported that the child had been crying and that she had pacified him.'

Her complaint led to Ms Malabver-Goulbourne being suspended, a disciplinary investigation launched and the local authority and police being called.

The tribunal was told that neither the council nor the police - who interviewed all of the head teacher's children - thought further action necessary with officers concluding what she had done was 'reasonable chastisement'.

'[The officer] considered that physical chastisement could be appropriate because the child was in possession of a chemical, which could have caused irritation to his eyes, and he accepted [his mother's] explanation that her response was to get him out of harm's way,' the tribunal heard.

However, the trust continued its investigation into whether Ms Malabver-Goulbourne 'assaulted a pupil/child whilst in a position of trust and on school premises'.

When interviewed, Ms Bhagwandas accused the head teacher of inflicting pain on a child, that she was shocked at what happened and considered it a form of corporal punishment.

Ms Malabver-Goulbourne defended herself by claiming that her actions were designed to get her son's attention and not to hurt him.

'[She said that] when explaining inappropriate behaviours to her child she will say 'this is wrong we don't do that' and explain why or show him the appropriate way to behave,' the tribunal heard.

'She explained that this is what she did when her son J took up the hand sanitiser the first time at home.

'When it happened again in school, she reminded him about the first encounter with the sanitiser and that it had got into his eyes. [She said] that she used 'tapping' on J's wrist to get his attention.

'She described this action as meaning, 'Look at me when I am talking to you, focus on me and what I am saying' as he looked away when she was talking to him.

'[She said] that her son had not cried from her tapping the top of his hand, he started whining because she took the bottle away from him. She had not done it in anger or as a punishment.

'She tapped him on the top of his hand to get his attention to explain to him the danger of playing with hand sanitiser as she was worried about what could happen to him. She was clear that she had not smacked him.'

In May 2022, the trust sacked Ms Malabver-Goulbourne for gross misconduct.

'The Trust expressly forbids any physical chastisement or contact of any kind,' she was told. 'Therefore, whether a tap or otherwise, this was unnecessary physical contact with a pupil, which constitutes an assault, and therefore a breach of policies and statutory guidance.'

However, EJ Jones said that the school's code of conduct does not prohibit all physical contact between pupils and teachers and pointed out that as a parent of pupils that would be a difficult rule for the head teacher to abide by.

Upholding her claim for unfair dismissal, EJ Jones said: 'It is this Tribunal's judgement that [the Trust] had sufficient evidence...that she was trying to prevent injury to her child and addressing his behaviour.

'There was no evidence that she had committed physical chastisement or an assault.'

Read more