| The case of Luke v Stoke-On-Trent City Council | | | | times she had been ready and willing to do the |
| [2006], involved an employee who had been | | | | only work that she had been contractually obliged |
| employed as a special needs teacher at the local | | | | to do, namely her work at the ACE Centre. She |
| authority's Assessing Continuing Education Pupil | | | | therefore submitted that her wages had been |
| Referral Unit ("the ACE Centre") since 1996. The | | | | unlawfully deducted within the meaning of Part II |
| ACE Centre was the only one of its kind | | | | of the Employment Rights Act 1996. |
| operated by the local authority, and under the | | | | The tribunal dismissed the employee's claim. It |
| terms of her contract of employment ("the ACE | | | | found that the local authority had reasonably |
| Contract"), the employee was required to work | | | | reached the conclusion that her return to work at |
| at the ACE centre for 12 and three quarter hours | | | | the ACE Centre was unworkable in the light of |
| per week. | | | | her refusal to accept the conclusions of the |
| From April 2003, the employee had a separate | | | | investigator or the terms of the proposed action |
| contract of engagement with the local authority | | | | plan. In those circumstances, despite the express |
| governing the terms of her appointment at a | | | | terms of the ACE Contract, there had been an |
| different unit. Problems arose between the | | | | implied term of the contract permitting the local |
| employee and the head teacher of the ACE | | | | authority to require her to work at a location, |
| Centre. Between October 2002 and April 2003, | | | | other than that specified in the contract, provided |
| the employee was absent due to ill health. She | | | | that the employee suffered no detriment. |
| alleged that she had been the victim of bullying | | | | However this could only happen whilst a long term |
| and harassment by the head teacher of the ACE | | | | solution to the question of her return to work at |
| Centre. | | | | the ACE Centre was being resolved. |
| The local authority commissioned an independent | | | | The employee appealed. |
| investigator to examine the employee's | | | | The issue which fell to be determined before the |
| complaints. All of the employee's complaints were | | | | Employment Appeals Tribunal was whether the |
| dismissed except for one, and the investigator | | | | local authority had been contractually entitled to |
| proposed a return to work action plan designed to | | | | require the employee to work otherwise than at |
| assist her in resuming her work at the ACE | | | | the ACE Centre. |
| Centre. The employee indicated that whilst she | | | | The appeal was dismissed. It was held that where |
| was willing to take part in the action plan, she was | | | | a written contract clearly defined an employee's |
| not willing to accept the conclusions drawn by the | | | | contractual duties, the employee ought to be |
| investigator. | | | | entitled to proceed upon the basis that the |
| The local authority took the stance that the | | | | employee was not obliged to undertake different |
| action plan would have been unworkable on that | | | | duties. In such situations, the finding of an implied |
| basis. | | | | obligation to undertake work outside the express |
| On the 13th of June 2003, the local authority | | | | terms of the contract would only have been |
| formulated a proposal that the employee's return | | | | permissible in exceptional circumstances. Such |
| to the ACE Centre would be deferred, perhaps | | | | exceptional circumstance being where the |
| forever. She would be found equivalent hours | | | | requirement was justified, the work was suitable, |
| performing similar work within other parts of the | | | | and the employee suffered no detriment in terms |
| authority. | | | | of contractual benefits or status due to the |
| Initially, the employee agreed to that proposal in | | | | change of duties on a temporary basis. |
| principle but, in August 2003, she indicated that | | | | In this case, the view adopted by the employee |
| she found the proposal unacceptable and that she | | | | in relation to the conclusions of the investigator |
| was still intent upon resuming her employment at | | | | and the terms of the action plan had given rise to |
| the ACE Centre. The local authority maintained its | | | | such exceptional circumstances. The tribunal had |
| position that the employee's return to work at | | | | properly considered all the relevant factors in |
| the ACE centre remained unworkable given her | | | | reaching its conclusions, and in those |
| refusal to accept the conclusions of the | | | | circumstances had been entitled to make the |
| investigator. | | | | finding that the ACE Contract contained an implied |
| Several alternative proposals were suggested by | | | | term entitling the local authority to require the |
| the local authority which involved the employee | | | | employee to conduct work outside the scope of |
| working at sites other than at the ACE Centre. | | | | the express terms of the contract. |
| The proposed alternatives were deemed | | | | If you require further information please contact |
| unsuitable by the employee, who insisted upon a | | | | us at or Visit |
| return to the ACE Centre. Throughout that | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note |
| period, the employee continued to receive | | | | does not provide a comprehensive or complete |
| remuneration under the terms of the ACE | | | | statement of the law relating to the issues |
| Contract. | | | | discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is |
| Finally, on the 11th of February 2004, the local | | | | intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist |
| authority ceased payment of the employee's | | | | legal advice should always be sought in relation to |
| wages. The employee brought a complaint before | | | | particular circumstances. |
| the employment tribunal alleging that at all material | | | | |