Mrs Cairns and others v Newport County Council and The Governing Body of High Cross School: 1601371/2020 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 2021 |
| Citation | 1601371/2020 and others |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 05 August 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Part Time Workers |
Case Number: 1601371/2020
1601372/2020
1601376/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mrs Cairns, Mrs Deacy & Mrs Richardson
Respondent:
Newport County Council and The Governing Body of
High Cross School
Heard at:
Cardiff by video
On: 24, 25 and 26 May 2021
Before:
Employment Judge R Harfield
Members
Mrs L Bishop
Ms H Hinckin
Representation:
Claimant:
Ms Annand (Counsel)
Respondent:
Mr Sanders (Solicitor)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that:
1. The claimants were unfairly dismissed;
2. The complaints of less favourable treatment contrary to the Part Time
Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations succeed;
3. The complaints of indirect sex discrimination succeed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. By way of claim forms presented on 16 June 2020 the claimants, who are
all part time teachers at Highcross Primary School in Newport, complain of
unfair dismissal, breach of the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less
Favourable Treatment) Regulations and indirect sex discrimination. The
respondent resists the claim. The matter came before EJ Harfield at a
case management preliminary hearing on 5 January 2021. EJ Harfield
produced a list of issues found at page [101] to [103] of the bundle.
Case Number: 1601371/2020
1601372/2020
1601376/2020
2
2. We received a bundle of documents extending to 397 pages. References
in this Judgment in brackets [ ] are references to page numbers in the
bundle. For the claimants we received written witness statements from the
claimants and from Ms Hoosain who is a full time teacher at the school as
well as a NEU representative. For the respondents we received witness
statements from Ms Rutledge the executive headteacher at the relevant
time and Mr Mason senior HR and OD business partner. We heard oral
evidence from those witnesses. We do not know why, but we did not hear
from any of the governing body, who actually decided to dismiss the
claimants. We had an agreed chronology and some agreed admissions
relating to statistics. During the course of the hearing we also received into
evidence an email dated 9 December 2020 and some further agreed
admissions relating to that email. We received written closing submissions
and oral submissions from both representatives. The hearing was
conducted by video due to ongoing restrictions caused by the covid 19
pandemic.
Findings of fact
3. We make the following findings of fact, applying the balance of
probabilities where it is necessary to resolve a dispute.
4. In 2005 it was decided that teachers should be given a minimum amount
of time for Planning Preparation and Assessment (PPA). It is PPA that is
at the heart of this dispute. Teachers are employed under the terms and
conditions set out in the School Teachers Pay and Conditions (Wales)
Document (STPCD) Paragraph 51.5 of the STPCD [161] says:
“All teachers who participate in the teaching of pupils are entitled to
reasonable periods of Planning, Preparation and Assessment (PPA) time
as part of the 1265 hours referred to in paragraph 50.5 or pro rata
equivalent (as the case may be) to enable the discharge of the
professional responsibilities of teaching and assessment. PPA time must
be provided in units of not less than half an hour during the school’s
timetabled teaching week and must amount to not less than 10% of the
teacher’s timetabled teaching time. A teacher must not be required to
carry out any other duties during the teacher’s PPA time.”
Ms Cairns
5. Ms Cairns has been employed as a teacher at High Cross Primary School
since 24 February 2003. She initially worked full time but following periods
of maternity leave has worked different part time arrangements. At the
start of the relevant time in question, in January 2019, Ms Cairns asked to
reduce her hours from 4.5 days a week (92.28% full time equivalent) to 3
Case Number: 1601371/2020
1601372/2020
1601376/2020
3
days a week for childcare reasons. When working 4.5 days a week Ms
Cairns had been responsible for running the nursery at the school and
would plan and prepare for the whole week. Within those 4.5 days she
had a half day PPA time. Ms Deacy covered nursery 1 day a week, to
cover Ms Cairns PPA time and the half day that Ms Cairns did not work.
6. When Ms Cairns asked to reduce her hours down to 3 days a week, the
then headteacher, Carl Sherlock, offered instead to reduce her contract to
66.32% compromising 3 full days and one half morning. He told Ms Cairns
that it was so that she could be in the classroom as much as possible as it
would be in the best interests of the children. CS said to Ms Cairns that he
wanted part time teachers to spend their time in the classroom and that
pupils would gain more stability and have less disruption if teachers were
consistent in their days. Ms Cairns agreed the arrangement. She would
then do her PPA in the half morning for 1.5 hours on a Monday and
spend 3 days teaching the nursery. Ms Deacy was working the other two
days in the nursery. Ms Cairns was sent a letter [237] confirming her
contract changes to working hours to 66.32% FTE produced by HR. The
HR and payroll form completed by Mr Sherlock set out a working pattern
which showed Ms Cairns working 1.5 hours on the Monday which was her
PPA time. The form also shows it was a reduction in hours for Ms Cairns
and not an increase.
7. In September 2019 Mr Sherlock decided that the other two days would
instead be covered by a Level 4 Teaching Assistant employed as a Higher
Level Teaching Assistant (HLTA). This was to save costs. Mr Sherlock
told the claimant she would be given additional PPA time to plan for all 5
days in the week, including the two days covered by the HLTA. Ms Cairns
hours were therefore increased to 72.63% of a full time equivalent. She
still taught 3 full days on a Tuesday, Thursday and Friday but her PPA
time was increased from 1.5 hours a week to 3 hours on a Monday
morning. This was the same PPA allowance that full time teachers were
receiving as Ms Cairns had to plan the same amount as a full time teacher
as it was for the whole nursery for the week. Again Ms Cairns was sent a
letter by HR confirming the change [241]. The accompanying form
explains that it was for an increase to PPA time.
Ms Deacy
8. Ms Deacy has been employed since September 2002. Again she initially
worked full time but has since worked a variety of working patterns. At the
relevant time, in January 2019 Ms Deacy’s hours were increased from
62.28% to 66.14%. The arrangement reached was that Ms Deacy would
cover 2 days in nursery that Ms Cairns did not teach (Monday and
Wednesday) and on a Tuesday she covered year 1 and year 2 PPA time.
To continue reading
Request your trial