In the case of Mr J C Arango v Interhigh Education Ltd Mr Arango was employed as a Spanish teacher at an online school providing online learning to students based in the UK and globally. Mr Arango’s employment was terminated as he did not accept the school’s proposed variation to his employment contract.
Mr Arango said that the changes were unreasonable, and he was not adequately consulted about them. He says that the new contract was more advantageous to full time workers and alleged that the new contractual terms about overtime were also less favourable (overtime became compulsory and unpaid) and that the school tried to enforce the new terms relating to overtime.
This process made him too unwell to do overtime, or to engage in the consultation process. He says he was subject to disciplinary action because he refused to do overtime. He maintains that it was unfair of the school to continue with the consultation process and to dismiss him when he was unwell and the contractual changes were severe.
The school denies that Mr Arango was disabled or that it had knowledge of the alleged disability. The school’s case is that Mr Arango was fairly dismissed for some other substantial reason, namely the need to harmonise the terms and conditions of its workforce. The school says that it conducted a fair consultation process and that it offered several benefits under the new contractual terms. It denies that it discriminated against Mr Arango or subjected him to detriment, or that any monies are owed to him.
Judge Adkin said that it was “a combination of reasons that amounted to unfair dismissal”, including the lack of occupational health referral and the employer’s communications with Chica Arango while he was off sick.
Adkin clarified that these reasons “contributed something to the unfairness of the process, although we would not have found that these matters in isolation made the process unfair”.
“One step which an employer might have taken would be an occupational health referral, the lack of which the tribunal finds a little surprising and somewhat unsatisfactory. [Chica Arango] had been off work from 29 May to 3 August and was returning seemingly not fully well based on the content of the return-to-work meeting.”
In relation to hours and pay, the employer’s process was ruled as falling “outside of the range of reasonable responses” as [Chica Arango] “was expressing confusion about the ‘vague’ terms of his contract”.
Adkin said: “It was important that [Chica Arango] received clear documentation setting out the basic elements of his pay, i.e. his salary and his hours. He did not receive this. At the very least he should have received candid, transparent and accurate information about the effect on his pay.”
The tribunal also concluded that Chica Arango would “not have signed” the new contract, even if the procedure had been handled fairly as he was “unhappy” with overtime arrangements and querying “many points” during the consulting period that “should have been clear” to him. It decided the likelihood of him being dismissed was 75 per cent, and his compensatory award was reduced by that amount.
The judge ruled that Chica Arango’s compensation for damages for breach of contract amounted to £6,448.60 and damages for unfair dismissal of £7,551.54.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
