Law report: unlawful deduction of wages claim, Ashford Employment Tribunal

Here is a report of a recent employment tribunal, by Hywel Griffiths and Georgina Cowens

Mrs Sauterau-Chandley v The Mead School, 15 April 2010
Judge: Miss Victoria Wallis
Paul Strelitz of East Anglian Chambers, Ipswich instructed by Hywel Griffiths of Kester Cunningham John Solicitors.
Christine Sauterau-Chandley, a litigant in person.

The claimant, a part-time French teacher at the respondent school, brought a claim that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction of her wages by failing to pay her correctly when her working hours increased.

The claimant’s contract of employment states that she will work two-fifths of the working hours of a full-time teacher (40 per cent FTE), for which she will be paid two-fifths of a full-time teacher’s salary.  The claimant’s contract states that her: “Normal working arrangement will be Tuesday and Thursday”. However, she may be required to work at other times “as may be necessary in the reasonable opinion of the head for the proper performance of her duties”, provided her total working hours do not exceed two-fifths or 40 per cent FTE.

For the academic year 2006-2007, the claimant was timetabled to take lessons on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with a lesson on Friday (which the respondent submitted was at the claimant’s request). For the academic term 2008-2009, the claimant was timetabled to work on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with a lesson on Monday. The claimant was also asked to attend the majority, but not all, of the staff meetings and inset days, including those outside term time.

Little change
Despite the changes to her timetable, the claimant’s working hours did not at any point exceed 40 per cent FTE. The claimant submitted that she was paid for working on Tuesdays and Thursdays only and therefore she should be paid extra (above 40 per cent FTE) for working on Fridays and Mondays as well as for attending staff meetings and inset days. The claimant argued that, by failing to increase her wages, the respondent had made an unlawful deduction of wages.

The respondent’s defence was that the claimant’s contract of employment was drafted in such a way as to ensure that, should changes to the claimant’s contract occur, or should the claimant be required to attend at times outside her timetable, her salary at 40 per cent FTE continued to be sufficient to reflect such attendance. It was undisputed that at all times the claimant was paid 40 per cent FTE, despite the fact that at times the claimant was actually working less than 40 per cent FTE.

Following a reserved judgment, Judge Wallis held that no unlawful deductions were made by the respondent. The claimant was at all times paid 40 per cent FTE and her working hours never exceeded 40 per cent FTE. The Judge agreed that the requirement on the claimant to work days other than Tuesday and Thursday, to attend staff meetings and inset days, including outside term time were as per the claimant’s contract of employment.

Case report submitted by Hywel Griffiths and Georgina Cowens of Kester Cunningham John Solicitors.

Return to Employment