Case 3314788/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T. Turner v East Barnet School — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314788/2019
- Decision date
- 6 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Panel members
- Mr A. Kapur, Mr S. Bury
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T. Turner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was a part-time term-time science technician at East Barnet School and a practising Christian. He brought claims for unauthorised deductions/holiday pay and indirect discrimination because of religion, and sought an uplift under s.207A TULR(C)A because of the handling of his grievance.
The respondent conceded the historic holiday pay and pension contributions due up to 1 September 2019, and the tribunal ordered payment of £1,689.44 inclusive of a 10% uplift. It rejected the claimant's further monetary claim for £86.90 for the period 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020, finding that the 2019 collective agreement with Unison was incorporated into the claimant's contract through clause 7 of the original contract and had retrospective effect from 1 September 2019, so he had been paid in accordance with his contractual entitlement.
On indirect religion discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the respondent operated a discretionary leave policy under which staff could seek paid leave for religious holidays and festivals. It found no significant disadvantage to Christians as a group because Christian staff already had paid school-holiday leave covering Christmas Day and Good Friday and could also request additional leave, and it found no personal disadvantage to the claimant because he had not himself sought religious holiday leave. It held that, in any event, the policy was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims including inclusion, work/life balance, equality compliance and staff relations.
On the ACAS uplift issue, the tribunal found that delays in the grievance process were not unreasonable because the grievance was complex and the respondent had sought advice, but it did find an unreasonable failure to determine the claimant's appeal. It considered it just and equitable to increase the award for unauthorised deductions by 10% on that basis.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent conceded the underlying sum due for the period to 1 September 2019: £1,240.59 for unauthorised deductions/holiday pay and £295.26 for pension contributions, totalling £1,535.85. The tribunal then applied a 10% uplift under s.207A TULR(C)A, producing the ordered sum of £1,689.44. | Upheld | — | £1,689 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The further claim for £86.90 (plus a small pension contribution sum) for the period 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020 failed because the tribunal found the 2019 collective agreement with Unison formed part of the contract and applied retrospectively from 1 September 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal rejected the indirect discrimination claim because it found no significant group disadvantage to Christians and no personal disadvantage to the claimant; alternatively, the PCP was objectively justified. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,689
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.178(1) TULR(C)A
- Mawson v Exel Logistics Ltd
- s.19 EqA 2010
- Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd
- Essop v Home Office
- Bilka proportionality test
- s.207A TULR(C)A / Acas Code
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.