Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Dundee City Council to appeal Linda Ross employment tribunal judgment

Dundee City Council to appeal Linda Ross employment tribunal judgment

Dundee City Council is to appeal against the findings of the employment tribunal panel which severely criticised the council over its handling of the Linda Ross affair.

A council spokesman confirmed the move on Monday evening more than a month after the three-man panel issued the 104-page judgment, but within the 42-day period allowed to lodge an appeal.

In the judgment, the panel unanimously ruled that former deputy head teacher Linda Ross had been unfairly dismissed and severely criticised former education director Anne Wilson, council HR staff and Lord Provost John Letford.

It described Anne Wilson as not being a ”reliable” witness and said the council’s HR department had ignored ”correct legal advice” an allegation the council has since denied.

It is understood the council has taken high-level legal advice and on the advice of QCs has decided to appeal.

A city council spokesman said: ”Following detailed and thorough consideration of the employment tribunal findings, Dundee City Council can how confirm that it will be applying to an employment appeals tribunal.”

Asked on what grounds the council was appealing, the spokesman refused to expand on the statement.

On hearing the news, Mrs Ross said: ”I’m very disappointed that we are not able to draw a line underneath this, but I’m not surprised given the previous attitude of the council.

”We’ll be discussing the situation further with our solicitor John Muir, but it’s very disappointing that it’s now going to drag on again.”

Following the publication of the judgment, Councillor Ian Borthwick called for an inquiry into the handling of the matter. Last night, Mr Borthwick, who was part of a team which investigated allegations of violence and indiscipline at Sidlaw View during 2007, said he could not comment.

”This matter is now sub judice and it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment until the outcome of these proceedings,” he said.

Mrs Ross, former depute head at Sidlaw View and Longhaugh primary schools, was dismissed by the council for gross misconduct in October 2008 after 15 allegations were brought against her.

Among the allegations were that she had run ”inappropriate” websites, a claim that was dismissed by the tribunal as ”frankly ludicrous” and which would not stand up to ”even cursory examination.”

The three-person tribunal panel, chaired by Ian McFatridge, ruled she had been ”automatically unfairly dismissed” by the council which, they said, in addition to failing to comply with their own procedures, had ”failed to comply with the basic requirements of natural justice.”

During the period allegations were being brought against Mrs Ross, the tribunal ruled, the council ”rather went out of control” and, ”completely lost all sense of proportion” and was blaming Mrs Ross for her husband’s actions as a result of frustration at not being able to get at Mr Ross.

The members pointed out that Mrs Ross felt that Lord Provost Letford, who had chaired her appeal hearing, treated the hearing as a ”jolly”. Mr Letford later also denied that allegation.

Mrs Ross and husband Vic declared the judgment a victory for them and would have expected to receive a substantial sum as compensation for her sacking. It could have run into six figures, given her salary as a depute head teacher.

That amount, plus what will be substantial legal and other costs to the council, would have to be met by the taxpayer. Now, unless the council appeal is successful, those costs could soar to several hundred thousand pounds.

After the tribunal judgment was published, The Courier made a freedom of information request asking what the cost would be to the city council in terms of staff hours and money from September 2007 to the conclusion of the tribunal in June this year.

The council’s answer was: ”This information is not recorded.”

Asked how many staff were involved in the investigation into Mrs Ross in 2007 while she was at Sidlaw View and also during her period at Longhaugh Primary, the council confirmed there were two members of staff involved in each investigation.

It also confirmed the cost of a court interdict raised against Vic Ross in 2008 was £221.09.