A long-serving college staff member has been awarded over £30,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled that his dismissal during a restructure was unfair.
Paul Richter, who had worked at Prior Pursglove College in Guisborough for 26 years, brought a claim against Atomix Educational Trust (formerly Tees Valley Collaborative Trust) following his redundancy last September. The tribunal upheld his claim of unfair dismissal and ordered the trust to pay £30,723.
Mr Richter had been employed as a liaison manager, supporting students with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), managing staff and providing teaching cover. He was made redundant following a restructure led by CEO Dr Nichole Munro, which aimed to separate teaching and support roles to improve competitiveness across the trust.
As part of the restructure, Mr Richter applied for a newly created deputy head role in a SEND team, known as Endeavour. The tribunal found that Mr Richter possessed “the experience, skills and capabilities in abundance” to perform the duties. However, he did not hold a professional teaching qualification, which was listed as essential for the role.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
Offer of lower-paid role and pay protection oversight
Following a meeting with Dr Munro and HR lead Sharon Boyes in June 2023, Mr Richter was told he would not be considered for the deputy head position. Instead, he was offered an alternative role as student liaison lead across Prior Pursglove and Stockton Sixth Form College. The post did not include teaching or management responsibilities and came with a £4,953 pay reduction.
Mr Richter declined the offer, citing the demotion and reduced salary. He then appealed his dismissal internally, but this was unsuccessful. During the tribunal, it was revealed that the trust failed to inform him of an existing pay protection policy, which would have preserved his original salary for a period following redeployment.
Dr Munro explained that she had chosen not to offer pay protection in order to benchmark all roles, expressing concern that offering the benefit to one employee could lead to expectations from others. She acknowledged, however, that there was no legal barrier to increasing the pay of a redeployed role to match a previous salary.
The tribunal accepted Mr Richter’s evidence that he would have taken the student liaison lead position had pay protection been applied. Employment Judge JS Burns found that the trust’s failure to apply its own policy constituted a breach and said the employer had “kept quiet” about the benefit.
Tribunal findings and compensation
Judge Burns stated, “The failure to offer pay protection was a clear breach of the policy. If the respondent wanted to benchmark roles or do anything else contrary to its obligation under the pay protection policy, then it should have changed the policy first after proper consultation.
“I find that the respondent acted unfairly in withholding pay protection from the claimant, thereby breaching its obligation to take such steps as were reasonable to avoid or minimise redundancy by redeployment within its own organisation, and that this fell outside the range of reasonable responses available to an employer in the circumstances.”
Mr Richter, who represented himself during the proceedings, had also received a redundancy payment from the trust. The tribunal awarded him additional compensation, including £6,744 in pension contributions lost as a result of the dismissal. Judge Burns found it was “just and equitable” to award compensation equal to one year’s pay protection from September 2023, based on Mr Richter’s previous salary.
