Mrs Cairns, Mrs Deacy & Mrs Richardson v Newport County Council and The Governing Body of High Cross School — 2021

The three claimants were part-time teachers at High Cross Primary School. In 2019 the new executive headteacher and the governing body decided to regularise their contracts by reducing their contractual hours so that PPA time would be included within those hours rather than being paid on top. When the claimants would not agree, they were dismissed and re-engaged on 60% contracts from 1 September 2020. The tribunal accepted that the respondents believed the existing arrangements were anomalous and inconsistent with the STPCD, but found that belief to be mistaken.

On the Part Time Workers claim, the tribunal held that the full-time teachers at the school were proper comparators and that the claimants were treated less favourably because only part-time teachers had their contractual hours forcibly reduced. It preferred the approach that part-time status need only be an effective and predominant cause of the treatment, and found that the claimants’ part-time status was a material driver of the decision. The tribunal rejected the respondents’ argument that the treatment was simply to regularise contracts or comply with the pro-rata principle, and held that objective justification was not made out.

On indirect sex discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the PCP was the reduction of contractual hours for part-time teachers. Relying on the statistical material before it, and on the fact that part-time teaching is more commonly undertaken by women, the tribunal found that the PCP placed women at a particular disadvantage and also disadvantaged the claimants individually. It rejected the respondents’ asserted aim of achieving consistency between part-time and full-time staff as a real need sufficient to justify the measure, and held that less discriminatory alternatives were available, including moving PPA within existing timetabled hours or adjusting the timetable without reducing pay.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the claimants’ refusal to agree to the contract variation. It did not accept that this amounted to a substantial reason justifying dismissal, and alternatively held that the dismissals were outside the range of reasonable responses. It was concerned that the governors relied heavily on the executive headteacher and HR advice, without an open-minded assessment of the STPCD position, and that the claimants were not given fuller reasons. Liability was decided only; the case was relisted for a separate remedy hearing, and no monetary award was determined in this judgment.