Case 2300510/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adamu Thomas v The Kingsdale Foundation — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300510/2023
- Decision date
- 6 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adamu Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a teacher employed at the Kingsdale Foundation School since 2005, brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages covering February 2021 to January 2023. His 2005 contract (clauses 4 and 27(b)) incorporated the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD). The respondent had introduced new pay and appraisal policies in 2013 and 2018 which moved teachers off the upper pay scale onto an internal expert teacher framework and later onto the M6 scale with top-up payments. The tribunal found that neither the 2013 nor the 2018 policy operated as a variation of the claimant's contract, so the STPCD continued to apply and the claimant could not be moved off the upper pay range while he remained at the school.
Applying section 14.1 of the STPCD, the tribunal held that a teacher on the upper pay range must be paid within the statutory minimum and maximum of that range as the relevant body determines, and that the advisory spine points are not mandatory. The respondent therefore had discretion to set pay within the range, subject to the safeguarding rule that pay could not be reduced. Comparing the amounts actually paid (excluding TLR payments but including safeguarding/TUPE top-ups) to the minimum of the upper pay range for each year produced shortfalls of £38 per annum from September 2020 and September 2021, and £1,392 for the year from September 2022.
Prorating those shortfalls across the relevant period (seven months of 2020/21, all of 2021/22, and five months of 2022/23) produced a total deduction of £640.17. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found well-founded and the respondent was ordered to pay that gross sum, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period 1 February 2021 to 31 January 2023; gross sum of £640.17 ordered, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £640 |
| Breach of contract | The reasons refer to monetary claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages being brought, but the formal judgment paragraphs address only the unauthorised deductions complaint. The contractual analysis (clauses 4 and 27(b) of the 2005 contract incorporating the STPCD) was determined in the claimant's favour as the route to quantifying the deduction, but no separate breach of contract award or dismissal is recorded. Outcome marked 'other' due to ambiguity in how the breach of contract claim was disposed of. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £640
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) s.12.2
- School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) s.14.1
- Rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.