A Bradford school has been heavily criticised by an Employment Tribunal for being overly-concerned with protecting its reputation rather than properly dealing with a bullying and harassment complaint brought by a former employee.

Allerton Primary has now been ordered to pay the woman an estimated £22,500 for lost earnings after she sued them for unfair and constructive dismissal. It is claimed they have spent an estimated £30,000 on fighting the woman’s claims – a figure Bradford Council disputes.

In its ruling, the tribunal said that the school was more concerned about the reputation of the deputy headteacher Rosemary Batty, than that of the former worker Julie Topham.

The drawn-out process started in February 2009 when Mrs Topham, a learning mentor at the school, filed a formal complaint against her line manager, Mrs Batty, claiming that she spoke to her inappropriately, had incorrectly claimed she had received formal complaints about Mrs Topham and generally made her working life difficult.

An independent investigator was commissioned by the school at an estimated cost of £10,000 to investigate the issues, then a panel of governors heard a grievance and a subsequent appeal by Mrs Topham.

Both were thrown out and Mrs Topham resigned in June, 2010.

She then took her case to the tribunal claiming that the school, including the then Chair of Governors, Charles Dacres, did not handle the school’s grievance process properly.

Mrs Topham said that she was not allowed to cross-examine Mrs Batty during the grievance process and that Mr Dacres “asserted undue influence over the governors” because he acted as the management representative, rather than Headteacher Sharon Lambert taking up the role.

In its judgment, the tribunal found that because Mr Dacres presented the management case at the two grievance hearings, the two panels of Governors were tainted with apparent bias.

Regarding allegations of formal complaints against Mrs Topham, the tribunal said: “Parts of evidence we have quoted seem to indicate that at least one of the factors influencing the Governors was a wish to maintain the reputation of the school, as opposed to deciding between competing employees.”

Mrs Topham said: “I would not work for them if they were the last employer on earth. This was never about money for me. I loved my job and no-one has ever been held accountable.”

Legal representatives, including a QC, acted for the school and the Council while Mrs Topham represented herself.

Sue Colman, Bradford Council’s assistant director of education and school improvement, said: “A school’s Governing Body is under a duty to fully investigate any complaints that are brought to it and the Council supports any action that is taken to ensure that such investigation is undertaken independently and fairly.

“Local Authority staff also have a right to make a claim to an employment tribunal if they believe that they are being unfairly treated. However, the Council has a duty to protect public funds and must ensure that they are spent in accordance with the law.”

Councillor Ralph Berry, executive member for children and young people, said that because an appeal was pending he could not comment.

But he said: “A tribunal situation can turn into a nightmare scenario for schools quite quickly. Now we are making sure all schools are getting advice professionally rather than hearing what they want to hear.”