Case 1601302/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D. Hughes v Wrexham County Borough Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601302/2018
- Decision date
- 11 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Mr J.D. Williams, Ms S.D. Atkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. D. Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Hughes was engaged by Wrexham County Borough Council as a supply/casual music teacher from May 2014 to 31 August 2018, not as an employee. It placed weight on the agreement signed on 20 December 2016, which confirmed that he was a supply worker, that the council was not obliged to offer work and he was not obliged to accept it, and that he would be paid rolled-up holiday pay and for travel only between schools. On that basis, the claim for a written statement of employment particulars failed.
The tribunal rejected the claims based on travel and the reductions in his working pattern. It found no mutuality of obligation, no control beyond professional standards, and no breach in the reduction from 4 days to 3 days in April 2016 or from 3 days to 2 days in September 2017. It also held that the earlier claims were out of time, and that in any event the claimant had continued working under the revised arrangements and had affirmed the contract. The claims for travel time from home to school and for unpaid travel expenses also failed, with the tribunal finding that the agreed terms did not cover home-to-school travel.
The part-time worker detriment claim was dismissed because there was no actual full-time comparator in the music service. The tribunal found that the comparators advanced by the claimant were established full-time teachers, not full-time supply teachers, and it would not rely on a hypothetical comparator. It therefore rejected the complaints about timesheets, training days, public holidays and PPA time as part of that claim.
The holiday pay claim succeeded in part. The tribunal found that the claimant had been paid rolled-up holiday pay, but at 12.07% rather than the 14.36% said to reflect his working pattern. The respondent accepted that point. The tribunal did not determine the final amount at this hearing, noting that the extent of any underpayment and time-limit issues would be dealt with at a later remedy hearing and referring to a maximum figure of £163.80 if the claimant succeeded on time.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid travel time from home to the first school and from the last school home was dismissed; the tribunal found the agreement covered travel only between schools and held earlier claims were out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid travel expenses for journeys between home and school was dismissed on the same reasoning; the tribunal found the agreement only provided for travel between schools and held earlier claims were out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim that the reduction from 4 working days to 3 working days in April 2016 breached contract was dismissed; the tribunal found no breach and held the claim was out of time and any breach had been waived or affirmed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim that the reduction from 3 working days to 2 working days in September 2017 breached contract was dismissed for the same reasons; the tribunal found no breach and held it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim succeeded in part: the respondent accepted that rolled-up holiday pay had been calculated at 12.07% rather than the 14.36% said to match the claimant's pattern. The amount due and any time-limit issues were left for a later remedy hearing; the tribunal referred to a maximum figure of £163.80 if time was resolved in the claimant's favour. | Upheld |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- mutuality of obligation
- s.1 ERA 1996
- Reg 2 WTR 1998
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Reg 5 PTWR 2000
- Reg 2(4) PTWR 2000
- series of deductions
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- rolled-up holiday pay transparently and comprehensibly
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.