There is an important question in the Enoch Burke dispute that I believe is being overlooked by most observers. Although I would imagine anyone who is an employer is more likely to have considered this question.
Let’s forget about issues of religion and transgender rights and education of young persons and setting an ethos in a school for the moment.
Is the employer entitled to manage and discipline employees?
Is the employer entitled to invoke the disciplinary procedures in the workplace and see those procedures implemented?
If the employer, for example, suspends an employee in accordance with the disciplinary procedures in the workplace and directs the employee not to attend the workplace whilst an investigation is being carried out, is the employer entitled to expect the employee to obey this direction?
And as part of this entitlement to manage employees and the workplace, if it is accepted that there is such a right, is the employer entitled to choose who to employ?
And also to choose who is not suitable for their particular workplace and employment.
To put this at its most basic, is an employer obliged to employ someone when the essential element of trust and confidence in the employee has disappeared?
Or is the employer entitled to terminate the contract of employment?
These questions, in my view, are being overlooked in the Enoch Burke case.
But I believe they may well come back into sharp focus if the Disciplinary Appeals Panel recommends that Enoch Burke is reinstated to the role from which he was dismissed by the employer in January 2023.
This dispute is not just about Enoch Burke and Wilson’s Hospital School. This dispute is not just about religion or transgender rights or culture war issues.
It is, in my view, about the right of the employer to manage the workplace and his employees.