[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Spencer-Phillips v. University of The West of England [1999] UKEAT 926_99_1611 (16 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/926_99_1611.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 926_99_1611

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Professor A J Pointon (Representative) Association of University Teachers 104 Albert Road Southsea Hampshire PO5 2SN


 


JUDGE PUGSLEY: This is an appeal from a decision of the Bristol Employment Tribunal. We have received a detailed skeleton argument. Essentially there is one issue in the case.

1. Doctor Peter Spencer-Phillips was employed as a senior lecturer. In September 1997 he was granted an allowance for undertaking the duties of a Subject Group Lecturer. The allowance was to be paid until 31^st December 1998.
2. In January 1998 Dr Spencer-Phillips was appointed to be a Principal Lecturer; the appointment was backdated to September 1997. The relevant entry in the handbook was as follows: "a lecturer should be entitled to an increase equivalent to at least one increment on promotion".
3. Allowances were not paid to Principal Lecturers. Although Dr Spencer-Phillips received an additional increment on becoming a Principal Lecturer his total remuneration was less than the salary as senior lecturer with the additional allowance. The university protected Dr Spencer Phillip's position and his total remuneration was protected until the allowance would have expired, namely 31^st December 1998.
4. Since the 1^st January 1999 Dr Spencer-Phillips has been receiving less than he did for the period September 1997 to December 1998 and he claims this is an unlawful deduction of wages.
5. In a clear and comprehensive decision the regional Chairman rejected the claim. He fought that there was never any intention or requirement that the salary of the senior lecturer and the allowance be consolidated. He also found that the duties undertaken as a Special Group Leader formed part of the job of a Principal lecturer and no separate allowances were paid for the responsibilities. The Applicant had received an extra increment on promotion. The Chairman noted that the protected earning had been approved by NATFHE in the original meeting of the Negotiating Sub Committee on 26^th February 1998.
6. The allowance was expected to be paid until 31^st December 1998 and the Appellant's total income was protected until then. There was a shortfall through it must be remembered that the Principal Lecturer had a much higher salary maximum and in due course the salary will be greater that the senior lecturer scale and allowance.
7. We cannot see that there is any objection at all to the Tribunal Chairman sitting alone. It is conceded that he had jurisdiction to sit alone but it is said that having regard to the matters that should be considered under the Employment Tribunal's Act 1996, shall have sat with members.
8. The reality is that no application was made that the Tribunal should be with members. I am afraid that Professor Pointon was frank when he said that it was only when the chairman gave his reasons he thought it should have been with members. I am sorry, in our view, this was a matter that was within the jurisdiction of a chairman to hear alone.
9. Perhaps, one should say one has some sympathy with any one in this position, but on the other hand, the post of principal lecturer is much more advantageous in the long term. It has a higher rate of incremental scale than being a senior lecturer with a special responsibility allowance which was only paid for a finite period of time. We note that in many areas of employment promotion in reality may be a short-term loss. Other examples are when hourly paid workers achieve staff status and thereby lose overtime.
10. We therefore dismiss this appeal.