Mr James Walker v The Governors of Arnhem Wharf Primary School and 1 other — 2020

The tribunal found that Mr Walker had been moved into a permanent Design and Technology role in 2015 on terms which included a TLR2 payment. It held that the school had treated the TLR as if it were payable in error, but on the facts there had been an agreement to vary his role and pay arrangements so that the TLR was part of the contractual package. The later decision in November 2017 to remove the supplement, without prior consultation or any hearing, was found to be a serious breach of contract.

The tribunal also held that the refusal to allow the claimant a grievance or appeal about the removal of the TLR was itself a serious breach. It rejected the respondent's position that the issue could only be dealt with through correspondence from the headteacher, and found that a forum should have been provided to let the claimant challenge the decision. Those two matters, taken together, were capable of founding a constructive dismissal, and the claimant resigned during the disciplinary hearing on 5 July 2018 in response to them.

On the disciplinary allegation itself, the tribunal found that the claimant had promoted the use of a cap on the smoke detector in the DT room on more than one occasion, and that the school was entitled to treat the matter seriously as a health and safety issue. It accepted that the claimant had minimised his own involvement and that the investigation and disciplinary process were broadly reasonable, although the tribunal did note some shortcomings, including the late start to the 5 July 2018 hearing and the failure to tell him in advance exactly which witnesses would attend. The disciplinary panel concluded that misconduct was made out but that the proper sanction was a written warning.

The disability reasonable-adjustments claims under sections 20, 21 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had PTSD and that he was disabled from 7 December 2017, but held that the school's use of its ordinary disciplinary, grievance and absence-management processes did not place him at a substantial disadvantage in a way that required the adjustments he proposed. It rejected the suggestion that the claimant's grievance and disciplinary processes should have been collapsed into one, that the school should have abandoned its ordinary procedures, or that volunteer governors and HR advisers should have been replaced by dedicated professionals.

The section 15 claims were also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the reduction of sick pay to half pay was unfavourable treatment and that the claimant's absence from work arose from his disability, but held that the respondent was pursuing legitimate aims through a generally applicable sick-pay policy, including consistency, budget certainty, and encouraging resolution of outstanding issues. It concluded that the policy was proportionate in the circumstances. The judgment records liability on the unfair dismissal and TLR claims, but it does not quantify any monetary award in the reasons provided.