Mr Robert Faulds v Represented by: Ms L Lindsay - Solicitor Department for Work and Pensions — 2022

Mr Robert Faulds had been employed in the civil service since 1 May 1997 as an Administrative Officer with the DWP. In 2021 he moved on loan to the DVSA under a loan agreement dated 5 September 2021, which stated that the loan ran from 20 September 2021 to 19 September 2023 and that terms varied by the loan would revert to their original state on return unless the employee had been permanently promoted or promoted during the loan.

The claimant did not pass the necessary part of the DVSA training and was returned to the DWP. The judgment records that his grievance about the loan period and return was partially upheld, with pay backdated from 1 April 2022 to 10 May 2022 made up to HE level. Before the tribunal, he argued that he had been promoted to EO grade when he joined DVSA and that his pay on return should reflect that grade.

The tribunal considered the loan agreement and the respondent’s loans advice policy, including clause 11 on promotion. It found there was no evidence of the host department discussing a cross-government promotion exercise with the home department, no interview, and no new loan agreement. The claimant's payslips showing EO pay were treated as payroll presentation rather than proof of promotion, and the candidate pack did not assist his case.

Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and reading the written documents in context, including the approach in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, the tribunal held that the claimant had not demonstrated a contractual change or an implied promotion. It concluded that he was not promoted whilst at DVSA, that he returned to his substantive AO grade, and that the unlawful deductions claim was dismissed.