THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COPPEL:
The appeal
The appellant appeals from the judgment of the Employment Tribunal ("the tribunal") (Employment Judge Lumby) sent to the parties on 6 August 2024 ("the judgment") in which the tribunal partially upheld his claim for unlawful deduction from wages, contrary to s. 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("the Act"), awarding him £640.17, but rejected the significant majority of his claim by value. The respondent ("the School") does not challenge in principle the tribunal's finding in favour of the appellant but accepts that the tribunal has made a calculation error, such that the award to the applicant should have been £902.67.The School resists the appeal regarding the majority of the appellant's claim and has lodged a cross-appeal which it wishes to pursue only in the event that the appeal in respect of the majority of the claim is successful.
The tribunal's judgment
I summarise the tribunal's judgment as follows (references to paragraph numbers are, unless otherwise stated to the paragraphs of the judgment).
Analysis
At the hearing before me, the appellant repeated the submission which he had made to the tribunal that, having attained the maximum U3 point on the STPCD post-threshold pay scale, he was entitled to be paid at the top of the upper pay range regardless of the School's assessment of his performance.
In my judgment, the tribunal was correct to rule that the appellant's contractual entitlement was to be paid at a level which fell within the STPCD upper pay range as it was fixed from year to year and that he did not have any right to be paid at the maximum figure or at any other particular level within the upper pay range.
I allow the appeal to that extent. Otherwise, I dismiss the appeal. It follows that the School's cross-appeal does not arise for determination.