Case 1800843/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C King v City of York Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800843/2023
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C King was employed by City of York Council as a school business manager at Ralph Butterfield Primary School from 1 February 2006 until her retirement on 31 August 2022. A national pay settlement for local authority workers was reached on 1 November 2022 and backdated to 1 April 2022. Mrs King claimed arrears for the period from 1 April to 31 August 2022 after being told she would not receive the back pay.
The tribunal found that the claimant's contract provided for salaries to be reviewed annually in accordance with National Joint Council pay bargaining arrangements. It found that the 2022 pay agreement increased the applicable rate of pay from 1 April 2022, that the increase was referable to work done while the claimant was employed, and that the fact it became payable after her employment ended did not prevent it being wages.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that payment to leavers was simply discretionary. It found that arrears had historically been paid to leavers, and at Ralph Butterfield Primary School had been processed automatically. It also found there was no evidence of an earlier exercise of discretion by the Head of Paid Service and that the claimant did not know and had no reasonable way of knowing that the respondent had changed its policy in March 2022.
Applying sections 13, 27 and 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and considering Hellewell, Park Cakes v Shumba, Leyland Vehicles v Reston and Robertson v Blackstone Franks, the tribunal held that £585.52 was properly payable to the claimant on 1 November 2022. The unauthorised deductions from wages claim succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £585.52. The tribunal said it was not necessary to determine breach of contract separately, but that in the alternative such a claim would succeed for the same reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that it had been unclear whether the claim was brought as breach of contract or unauthorised deductions from wages, but the reserved judgment upheld the unauthorised deductions claim and awarded the same back pay sum. | Upheld | — | £586 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said it was not necessary to consider the claim as breach of contract, but stated in the alternative that a breach of contract claim would succeed for the same reasons. No separate breach of contract award was made. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £586
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Hellewell and others v Axa Services Ltd and others
- Park Cakes Ltd v Shumba and others
- Leyland Vehicles Ltd v Reston and others
- Robertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Ltd
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.