Anderson v Chesterfield High School (Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason): EAT 14 Apr 2015

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason – Contributory fault
Polkey deduction
The Claimant is a politician in Local Government and is currently the elected Mayor of Liverpool. This is an executive post and regarded as full-time. The position carries with it an annual allowance of almost andpound;80,000. The Claimant had previously held positions as Councillor of Liverpool City Council, the Leader of the opposition on the Council and ultimately at the time of his election as Mayor, Leader of the Council, which was in effect a full-time post with an annual allowance of approximately andpound;50,000. Prior to his election as Mayor, the Claimant was employed by a neighbouring Local Authority, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (‘Sefton’) at Chesterfield High School and once elected Leader of Liverpool City Council had ceased to work at the school. The Claimant and Sefton agreed that he should continue as an employee but on the basis that he would be paid the maximum allowed as paid leave to enable employees to hold public office by section 10 Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (208 hours per annum). His post was held open and Sefton also continued to pay pension contributions.
This arrangement continued until the school became an Academy when the Claimant’s employment transferred by a TUPE transfer to the Respondent, now independent of Sefton.
The Respondent was concerned that the arrangement was ‘inequitable’ principally because the Respondent was paying some andpound;4,500 per annum to the Claimant but the pupils at the school received no benefit. The Respondent accordingly terminated the agreement. The Claimant claimed, inter alia that he had been dismissed unfairly.
The Employment Tribunal found that he had remained an employee and had been dismissed for ‘some other substantial reason’, a potentially fair reason. However, the dismissal procedure was unfair, and his claim for unfair dismissal was upheld. He was entitled only to a basic award but subject to a 100% Polkey deduction and 25% deduction for contribution under section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 but no compensatory award.
The Claimant appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal on the basis that the deductions were justified on the facts found by the Employment Tribunal and that the Respondent had acted reasonably in taking the view that a continuation of an arrangement whereby the Claimant was paid (albeit a modest amount) by a publicly funded school without having to provide any services, for an indefinite period was of no value to the Respondent and might lead to significant criticism. It was entitled reasonably to regard the arrangement as inequitable and unsustainable and to terminate the Claimant’s employment.

Serota QC HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0206 – 14 – 1404
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545354