TLR payments and a reduction in working hours

In the case of Mr A Fahey v Romero Catholic Academy Trust, Mr Fahey alleged that he had been subjected to less favourable treatment due to his part-time status, contrary to Regulation 5(1) of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.

Background

Mr Fahey worked as a lead teacher within the design and technology (D&T) department at Romero Catholic Academy Trust. During the academic years 2021/22 and 2022/23, he reduced his working hours to 60% of a full-time schedule following a flexible working request. The request was initially declined but later approved after the recruitment of an early careers teacher. Following the reduction of his working hours, Mr Fahey’s teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) payment was proportionally reduced to 60%.

Claim

Mr Fahey contended that, although he had reduced his hours, he continued to perform 100% of his previous TLR duties. He argued that this constituted less favourable treatment based on his part-time status, because he was remunerated less while allegedly maintaining the same workload.

Legal framework

The case centred on the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, particularly Regulation 5(1), which safeguards a part-time worker from less favourable treatment compared with a full-time comparable worker regarding contractual terms or other detriments. The ‘pro rata principle’ means that a part-time worker receives pay or benefits proportionate to their working hours relative to a full-time employee.

Employment tribunal (ET) findings

The ET’s main task was to determine whether Mr Fahey continued to carry out all his TLR duties following his reduction in hours. Following a review of the evidence from Mr Fahey and from the headteacher and assistant headteacher, the ET came to the following conclusions.

Reduction in TLR duties

The ET found that Mr Fahey’s TLR responsibilities decreased after the change to his working hours. For example, in summer 2021, food technology was separated from D&T, and another teacher took over the TLR duties for food technology. This meant that Mr Fahey was left with only D&T TLR responsibilities. Additionally, he no longer had line management responsibilities or oversight of the year 9 curriculum, duties he had previously managed when working full-time hours.

Lack of evidence for TLR duties

Mr Fahey did not provide adequate evidence detailing the time spent on TLR tasks when he worked full-time, nor when he reduced his working hours. This absence of data made it difficult to assess whether his part-time TLR duties remained consistent with his full-time workload.

Mr Fahey’s legal representative pointed out that the academy had failed to issue a letter confirming that his TLR duties would reduce in line with the reduction in his TLR payment. Although the ET agreed that this was a valid criticism of the academy’s record-keeping, it noted that the most important reason for Mr Fahey’s flexible working request was to achieve a greater work-life balance and he had specifically raised the possibility of a proportion of his TLR duties and payment being reassigned during his non-working days. In addition, he was aware from the outset that the TLR payment had been reduced to 60%.

Minimal TLR activities on non-working days

Evidence indicated that Mr Fahey engaged in negligible TLR activities on his non-working days. Over two academic years, only four e-mails were provided as work conducted on non-working days, none of which related to TLR duties.

Non-TLR duties described as TLR duties

Many tasks Mr Fahey claimed as TLR responsibilities, such as class preparation, marking and parent communications, were deemed standard duties of all classroom teachers and not TLR duties.

Conclusion

The ET concluded that Mr Fahey did not establish less favourable treatment. The evidence demonstrated a reduction in his TLR duties proportionate to his part-time hours, justifying the proportional decrease in his TLR allowance. Consequently, the claim was dismissed.

Observations

The ET noted concerns regarding the academy’s approach, highlighting that criticisms of Mr Fahey’s performance were introduced during the hearing without prior discussion during his employment. These criticisms were not supported by any of the material in the bundle and were deemed irrelevant to the case being brought.

This case highlights the importance of clear communication and documentation when modifying employment terms and responsibilities, ensuring that adjustments in duties and pay are transparent and mutually acknowledged.

Need support with your HR?

Our support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.

Our expert advisers are experienced in supporting schools with all aspects of staff management consultancy and recruitment. Our education HR specialists can support your school with a flexible and cost-effective service. Get in touch for a free quote about how we can help you.

The flexible working section of our CEFMi website contains model policies and related forms and letters. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text. No other website offers such a complete service specifically written for schools.