Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after misleading pay increase claim in contract harmonisation
A Spanish teacher with 12 years' service was unfairly dismissed for refusing a new contract after his employer misrepresented a pay rise as 10% when it was actually 1.2%. The tribunal found the dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #contract-harmonisation
- #long-service
- #sick-leave
- #misleading-pay-increase
- #failure-to-provide-personalised-contract
- #no-occupational-health-referral
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Spanish teacher from 14 December 2007 to 31 August 2020.
- The respondent sought to harmonise contracts across the workforce, offering a new contract with a 42-week working year and a claimed 10% pay increase.
- The claimant went on sick leave on 29 May 2020 due to adaptive disorder with anxiety and insomnia.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on 31 August 2020 for not signing the new contract, citing some other substantial reason.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent misrepresented the pay increase (1.2% not 10%) and failed to provide clear personalised information on hours and pay.
- The disability discrimination claims were dismissed as the claimant was not disabled until 1 August 2020 and the decision to dismiss was made before that date.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced work as a Spanish teacher for the respondent.
-
Old contract signed
Claimant signed a contract with 35 working weeks per year and paid overtime by custom.
-
Contract harmonisation process began
Respondent started a process to harmonise contracts, aiming for more full-time contracts and annualised pay over 42 weeks.
-
New contract provided
Claimant received a proposed new contract with a 42-week year, a salary of £34,535 for full-time, and a claimed 10% pay increase.
-
Complaint about salary reduction
Claimant complained to Tony Knowles about reduction in salary and loss of overtime pay.
-
Claimant went on sick leave
Claimant started sick leave due to adaptive disorder with anxiety and insomnia, providing a sick note from a psychiatrist.
-
Notice of dismissal
Respondent sent a letter giving notice of dismissal if the claimant did not sign the new contract, with termination date 31 August 2020.
-
Return to work meeting
Claimant attended a return-to-work meeting where his mental health condition was discussed; respondent had knowledge of disability from this date.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended as he did not sign the new contract.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, part-time worker detriment, and breach of contract.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether dismissing a long-serving employee for refusing a new contract during a harmonisation process was fair, and whether the employer had discriminated against him due to disability or failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The employer had told the teacher the new contract came with a 10% pay rise, but the actual increase was only 1.2%. It also failed to provide a personalised breakdown of hours and pay, making it impossible for him to make an informed decision. The disability discrimination claims were dismissed because the teacher was not disabled until 1 August 2020, after the decision to dismiss had been made.
Compensation is to be determined at a later hearing. Any award will be subject to a potential Polkey reduction to reflect the chance that the employment might have ended fairly in any event.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must provide accurate and personalised information about proposed contract changes, especially for long-serving employees.
- Misrepresenting a pay increase, even unintentionally, can render a dismissal unfair.
- Disability discrimination claims depend on the timing of when the employer knew or should have known of the disability.
A breakdown in trust
This case shows what can go wrong when an employer tries to harmonise contracts across a workforce without giving each employee clear, personalised information. The teacher, who had taught Spanish for 12 years, was offered a new contract that the employer said came with a 10% pay rise. In reality, the increase was just 1.2%. The tribunal found that this misrepresentation, combined with a failure to provide a breakdown of hours and pay, meant the teacher could not make an informed decision. When he refused to sign, he was dismissed.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer had a legitimate aim – to harmonise contracts – but the process was flawed. It should have given the teacher a personalised statement showing exactly how his hours and pay would change. It should also have corrected the misleading 10% figure as soon as it became aware of the error. The tribunal noted that the teacher was on sick leave with anxiety and depression at the time, but the dismissal decision was made before his condition met the legal definition of disability. Even so, the employer could have paused the process or offered more support.
Why this matters
For employees facing contract changes, this case is a reminder that employers must be transparent and accurate. A dismissal for refusing a new contract can be unfair if the employer has not given the employee the information needed to make a choice. The case also highlights the importance of timing in disability discrimination claims – the teacher's disability claims failed because the employer did not know and could not reasonably have known he was disabled when it decided to dismiss him. Compensation will be decided later, with a possible reduction if the tribunal finds the teacher might have been dismissed fairly anyway.
Similar cases
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after raising race discrimination grievance
A primary school teacher with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown' after she raised a grievance alleging race discrimination. The tribunal also found she was victimised.
Machine Room Manager dismissed after blocking subordinate: conduct dismissal upheld
An Employment Tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Machine Room Manager with 8 years' service who admitted physically blocking a subordinate during a workplace argument. No compensation was awarded.
22-year kitchen porter dismissed for sexual harassment: zero-tolerance policy upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a kitchen porter with 22 years' service after he whispered 'I wish I could impregnate you' to a colleague, following a previous warning about inappropriate comments.