What's the best way to manage conflict between colleagues in schools and colleges?

Conflict between staff is not uncommon. Whether it's a clash of personalities, differing professional values, or the pressure of work, unresolved tensions can quickly escalate and disrupt team dynamics. 

This article examines the case of Mrs A Syed v (1) Surrey County Council (2) The Governing Body of Beauclerc Infant and Nursery School, where a nursery nurse's relationship with two teachers deteriorated to the point they refused to work with her. 

Facts

Mrs Syed was a nursery nurse. Shortly after she started working at the school, the teacher she supported complained to the deputy head (who was also the reception class teacher) that Mrs Syed made negative comments about class planning, failed to follow established routines, questioned her judgment and would only stand in the shade in the playground. 

A ‘mediation meeting’ was held between the nursery team. According to the deputy head's notes, Mrs Syed was unhappy about how the nursery was managed and said she was taking notes on everything that happened. The other nursery nurse expressed discomfort noting that Mrs Syed only spoke to her and not the teacher, and that on one occasion, Mrs Syed had not completed a task with the children as instructed. The teacher became upset, and the deputy head reminded Mrs Syed that she needed to talk to the whole team and not leave people out. 

The meeting concluded with an agreement to start afresh. Mrs Syed's version of that meeting was different; she said no significant issues were raised although the nursery teacher didn't engage with her. 

A month later, the teacher emailed the head teacher, stating that both she and the other nursery nurse had struggled working with Mrs Syed and it was impacting their wellbeing and mental health. As numbers in the nursery were reduced, she suggested that Mrs Syed could move to the reception class in September. The head teacher met with the teacher to discuss her concerns and the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) agreed to the move. 

Reception class

Although she initially protested, Mrs Syed did move to reception working with the deputy head and a teaching assistant. On the afternoon of 20 September, the deputy head left the classroom for planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) time. She was a few minutes late back to the classroom and some parents were waiting to collect their children. She said that all children were safely handed over to their parents.  

The following day, Mrs Syed and the deputy head had a heated discussion about the handover in the staff room because Mrs Syed thought the handover was chaotic and rushed. A meeting was held on 22 September, with the head teacher, the deputy head, and Mrs Syed, to discuss it further. Mrs Syed openly criticised the deputy head in an unprofessional and disparaging manner. 

After this meeting, the head teacher asked staff who had previously raised concerns about Mrs Syed to put them in writing. Three emails described her as rude, opinionated, and resistant to feedback. On 28 September, the head met with Mrs Syed to discuss the feedback and reminded her that she was still in her probation period, and her employment may be terminated. However, Mrs Syed only recalled being told to improve communication. 

Dismissal

On 3 November, the deputy head emailed the head teacher and SLT, listing concerns about working with Mrs Syed and explaining that their relationship was extremely strained. She described feeling dread about attending work. The head teacher decided to terminate Mrs Syed's contract. Two SLT members informed Mrs Syed that she had failed her probation. A letter confirmed the decision but gave no further details. 

Mrs Syed appealed the decision. The appeal found procedural irregularities but upheld the dismissal.

She brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of making protected disclosures and alleged that she had also been subjected to detriments as a result of those disclosures.  

Employment tribunal

The tribunal first considered if Mrs Syed had made a protected disclosure. This requires a worker to disclose information to a particular person (usually their employer) which, in their reasonable belief, is made in the public interest and shows one or more of the following types of wrongdoing: criminal offence, breach of any legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of any individual, damage to the environment, or the deliberate concealing of information about any of these.

The tribunal concluded that, during the conversation in the staff room and in the meeting on 22 September, despite Mrs Syed's assertions, she did not raise any concerns about the safety of the children, nor did she suggest that a child might have gone missing during the handover. Notably, her claim form stated that she had deliberately chosen not to flag it as a safeguarding issue. The tribunal found no disclosure of information, so her claims failed.

Nevertheless, the tribunal considered the dismissal and alleged detriments. It concluded the dismissal was due to the rapid relationship breakdown with staff and her conduct in the meeting on 22 September - it wasn't prompted by concerns about the handover. As for the alleged detriments, while the deputy head did shout at Mrs Syed in the staff room, it was out of frustration. Other allegations, such as being belittled by the head teacher, were also not upheld. 

However, the tribunal did identify these procedural flaws:

• There were no written invitations to meetings
• She was not notified in writing of concerns about her attitude or communication
• Concerns were raised in person, but they should also have been documented in writing after meetings
• She ought to have been informed in writing of the improvements expected and advised that failure to meet these expectations could result in her not passing her probationary period required 

Practical guidance for schools and colleges 

Mediation v warnings and dismissal: can the relationship be salvaged? 

Workplace relationship breakdowns can occur for various reasons - staff may have different viewpoints, opinions, or personality clashes. Managing strained relationships can be stressful, particularly when issues persist or escalate and line managers may find these situations difficult to navigate. Providing training and ongoing guidance can help them respond effectively. 

It's often sensible to encourage the parties to engage in mediation at an early stage. Mediation involves an impartial person helping both parties work towards a mutually acceptable outcome. It can demonstrate that, as an employer, you are taking reasonable steps to resolve the matter constructively, rather than moving straight to taking disciplinary action or dismissal. However, it requires genuine engagement from both sides and, as this case shows, may not always succeed. It's also not suitable in every situation, particularly where there are serious allegations such as discrimination, or where relationships have broken down irreparably. 

Ultimately, if the situation cannot be resolved and has escalated significantly, it may be appropriate to consider dismissal on the grounds of ‘some other substantial reason’ (SOSR) once you've warned the employee about their behaviour. However, this route can be complex, especially where there are allegations of discrimination involved, so it's always best to seek legal advice before embarking on such action. 

Keep good records

A key theme from this case was the differing recollections of meetings. The tribunal placed greater weight on the school's notes, considering them an accurate account of the discussions - even though they hadn't been shared with Mrs Syed. While asking an employee to sign meeting notes can confirm accuracy (and is recommended by Acas), it may lead to disputes if the employee later disagrees with the content. An alternative is to share the notes and ask them to let you know if they have anything to add. If they don't respond, it implies they agree with it. 

At this point, sometimes, an employee will realise that they shouldn't have said something that's included in the notes, suggest they didn't say it and ask you to remove it. If you are confident that your notes are correct and reflect what you heard you do not have to change them. However, if the employee wants to add additional information, you should make a note of it. In the context of an investigation, it's the job of the investigator to decide whether to accept or reject the additions/revisions.

Keep a clear paper trail documenting the concerns you have with the employee. You will need this to justify any disciplinary action or decision to dismiss. While an employee is only legally entitled to written reasons for dismissal once they have two years' service (except if they are dismissed while pregnant or on maternity/adoption leave), to reduce the risk of disputes about your true motive, it's best to be up front and explain your reasons. 

Act fairly - in terms of outcome and the procedure you follow

Several procedural issues were identified in the school's handling of the dismissal and had she had two years' service her claim for unfair dismissal would have succeeded. That's going to change. The Employment Rights Bill will introduce a ‘day one’ right to claim unfair dismissal (expected from 2027). Once in force, it will significantly reduce the flexibility currently available to employers, so it's important to begin upskilling staff to ensure they can carry out fair and legally compliant disciplinary procedures. You can read more about the Employment Rights Bill in our article Timeline: when will the Employment Rights Bill come into force? 

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.