Mr A Martin v Southwark Council and 1 other — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing on the claimant's wage and whistleblowing claims, together with an amendment application and time-limit issues. The tribunal recorded the claimant's contractual position as a full-time teacher governed by the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 2017, including the 1265-hour directed-time limit and the separate obligation to work reasonable additional hours needed for professional duties. It referred to Agarwal v Cardiff University when dealing with the relationship between an unauthorised deduction claim and the construction of the contract of employment.

On the unpaid wages point, the tribunal held that the claimant had not identified any contractual or statutory entitlement to extra pay for directed hours worked above 1265 a year. It found that the annual salary already covered directed hours and that the contractual documents did not provide a rate of pay for hours above that limit. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unauthorised deductions claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. It also noted that the claimant remained employed, so a breach of contract claim could not be pursued in the employment tribunal in those circumstances.

On the protected disclosure claim, the tribunal struck out the alleged disclosure to Michael Davern on 27 September 2017 because it was a disclosure to a third party and had no reasonable prospect of success. However, it found that the public interest issue was arguable under Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed and refused to strike out or make a deposit order in relation to the remaining alleged detriments, describing them as fact-sensitive issues for the full hearing. It also said questions of time limits and whether events formed a series were matters for the merits hearing.

The tribunal refused the claimant's application to add the headteacher and chair of governors as additional respondents. It found there was no prejudice to the claimant because the existing respondent bodies remained the parties against whom any compensation would be sought, while the proposed individuals could give evidence for the named respondents. The amendment application was therefore refused.