Mr A Fahey v Romero Catholic Academy Trust — 2025

Mr A Fahey complained that Romero Catholic Academy Trust had subjected him to less favourable treatment because he was a part-time worker, contrary to regulation 5(1) of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The Tribunal noted that, after his hours reduced to 60% following a flexible working application, he relied on his former full-time role as his comparator under regulation 3. The central issue was whether, in 2021/22 and 2022/23, he continued to perform 100% of the Teaching and Learning Responsibility duties that he had carried out when working full-time, despite receiving only 60% of the TLR allowance.

The Tribunal found there was no cogent evidence of how much time per week the claimant spent on TLR duties when full-time, so it had no baseline from which to assess whether the pro rata principle had been breached. It accepted some duties were agreed TLR duties, but held that many of the activities relied on by the claimant were not TLR at all. These included work connected with the classes he shared with Mr Heyworth, attendance at parents' evenings, room allocation issues, timetabling concerns, and matters relating to health and safety.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the claimant's work with the shared classes amounted to TLR because it supported Mr Heyworth's development as an ECT. It found that formal responsibility for Mr Heyworth's development lay with Beverley Bury, not the claimant, and there was little or no evidence of observations or developmental discussions between them. It further found that there was no substantial evidence that the claimant carried out TLR work on non-working days; the few emails identified were either not TLR or were negligible in amount of time. The Tribunal inferred from the absence of evidence that he did not spend any significant time on TLR during non-working days.

The Tribunal found facts pointing to a reduction in TLR workload after the move to part-time hours, including the reallocation of Food Technology TLR to another teacher, the removal of line management responsibilities, and the absence of Year 9 curriculum responsibility. It concluded that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proof and had not established less favourable treatment. The claim was therefore dismissed. The Tribunal also observed that some criticisms raised by the respondent about the claimant's performance had not been raised in the ordinary course of employment and were not supported by the bundle, but it said the case did not concern how well he carried out his TLR duties.