The death of nepotism

Mrs Lane -v- Grange Park Preparatory School Limited

It was like witnessing a performance that came straight out of the film Whatever Happened to Baby Jane starring Betty Davis and Joan Crawford – here’s a link to a site about the film – http://www.filmsite.org/what.html

On the one side you had a devoted mother-figure who was prepared to compromise her integrity in order to support her child. On the other side you witnessed what appeared to be the calculated manipulation of a spoilt child who would stamp and scream until they had got what they wanted.

But who was really pulling the strings in this strange performance?

The case was about a Claimant who claimed she had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to Section 13, of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Claimant was employed as a secretary. She had claimed Constructive Dismissal. The Respondent had reduced her pay because an increase in pay that had been awarded to her had not been appropriately sanctioned.

The Claimant wanted the member of the Board of Governors who had increased her pay to give evidence that she had a right to the increase.

The relationship between the Claimant and the particular Governor was extremely close. They both referred to the relationship as being like, ‘mother and daughter.’

The definition of nepotism is favouring relatives. Whilst the relationship here was not actually nepotism, the behaviour of both the Claimant and the Governor in question, was as close as it gets without the relationship being a blood-kinship.

Under cross examination, it transpired that the Governor was aware that what she had done was wrong. The Claimant had clearly wanted full support from the Governor so that she would win her case. She wanted the Governor to state under oath that the
wages had been sanctioned appropriately and the Respondent had acted unreasonably.

The Governor was under immense pressure. If she told the truth the relationship with her ‘daughter’ would obviously suffer.

If she told lies then she would have betrayed the Respondent on whose behalf she was held a position of trust.

As this was happening in open court, whichever story she told, there would be an element of theatre as the drama unfolded.

In the end, the drama was more extraordinary than could have been foreseen by anyone.

Under cross examination, for two hours she struck to her story. But then she admitted the truth – she could not support her “daughter’s” claim, there had been no authority for the pay increase. Despite this, she said she’d never do anything that could hurt the Claimant. However, the admission was too much for her. Before the horrified Court, she lost consciousness and died.