Cases2300510/2023

Claimant v The Kingsdale Foundation

1 August 2024Before Employment Judge LumbyLondon South (Croydon)remote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£640

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found that the claimant's contract required his salary to be calculated in accordance with the STPCD and that the respondent could not unilaterally vary this by imposing new pay policies in 2013 and 2018. Under the STPCD upper pay range provisions, the claimant could not be moved off the upper pay band or have his pay reduced. The respondent paid him below the minimum of the upper pay scale range for the relevant period, resulting in unlawful deductions totalling £640.17.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The claimant succeeded in his breach of contract claim on the same basis as the unlawful deduction claim. The respondent breached the contractual terms requiring payment in accordance with the STPCD by paying below the minimum upper pay range threshold during the claim period.

Facts

Mr Thomas, a maths teacher employed since 2005, had a contract requiring his salary to be calculated according to the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD). He progressed to the upper pay scale (UPS3) by 2012. The school became an academy in 2010 and introduced new pay policies in 2013 and 2018 which removed the upper pay scale structure. Despite this, the employer continued to pay him on the main pay scale (M6) with top-up payments to safeguard his salary at £52,036, but did not increase it in line with the STPCD upper pay range minimums. The claimant claimed unlawful deduction of wages for the period February 2021 to January 2023.

Decision

The tribunal found that the employer could not unilaterally impose new pay policies to vary the claimant's contractual terms requiring payment in accordance with the STPCD. Under the STPCD, the claimant's status on the upper pay range was permanent and his pay could not be reduced. While the employer had discretion to set pay within the upper pay range based on performance, it paid the claimant below the statutory minimum for that range during the claim period, resulting in unlawful deductions totalling £640.17.

Practical note

An employer cannot unilaterally vary express contractual terms linking teacher pay to the STPCD by imposing new pay policies, even after extensive consultation, and must pay at least the minimum of the applicable STPCD pay range.

Award breakdown

Unpaid wages£640

Award equivalent: 0.7 weeks' gross pay

Legal authorities cited

Ridge v HM Land Registry [2014] UKEAT 0485/12

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13Deductions from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014Employment Rights Act 1996 s.23(4A)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.24(2)School Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1991Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 art.3

Case details

Case number
2300510/2023
Decision date
1 August 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Maths teacher
Salary band
£40,000–£50,000
Service
19 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep