A parish council clerk has succeeded in his claim of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, unauthorised wage deductions and breach of contract.
Puddington Parish Council in Cheshire employed Luke Trevaskis from January 2020 until August 2023 as its proper officer and responsible financial officer. He had an annualised hours contract of about five hours a week.
Trevaskis was told that he would be paid a rate equivalent to about £15 per hour. However, when he was successful in the role and was offered the job, the rate of pay offered was less. He was also offered travel expenses, and an allowance for using his home as an office, which included providing storage in his home for the council’s paperwork.
Trevaskis subsequently discovered that previous occupiers of his role were paid at higher rates despite their duties being either identical or less extensive than his. He was never given an appraisal despite requesting one, and so was never moved off his starting pay.
The tribunal in Liverpool found that a more serious dispute had started a year after Trevaskis began his role when he obtained insurance for the organisation, but councillors failed to authorise payment.
In November 2021 he wrote to all Puddington councillors saying: “I don’t wish to panic members, but I manage over £1.5 million across all the councils I work for and I see insurance claims frequently lodged against authorities. While Puddington is a small parish, the risk of claims still exists and I want members to be fully aware of the consequences that can arise from payments not being released.”
But senior council members accused him of “scaremongering” and he was warned by the council leader not to send similar emails again.
Similar problems arose the following year when Trevaskis raised the issue about insurance and several council members resigned. Remaining officers criticised his “efforts at complying with the statutory obligation on parish councils”.
It later emerged that none of the council members had read the clerk’s emails to them between 2021 and 2022 in which he urged them to release payment for insurance.
Nicola Hampson became a member of the council on 22 February 2023. Trevaskis said that she was unprofessional and rude and refused to disclose her home address on the respondent’s register of interests, although she was legally obliged to do so. She also refused to use an official council email address, demanding instead that she be contacted through her workplace email account at the Daily Mail.
Hampson held a meeting with Tevaskis at which she went through a list of tasks that she alleged the claimant had failed to complete. Tevaskis considered that this was driven by personal hostility towards him.
At the same meeting, he presented a letter stating that he was working under protest at his treatment. His letter also raised concerns of a serious failure in governance by Puddington council, including the failure to obtain public liability insurance before holding events on the village green, and multiple potential breaches of GDPR by her. He was copied in daily to messages with “antagonistic discussions about him” causing him to feel “dread at checking his emails”.
During a meeting held to discuss Tevaskis’s work on 12 July 2023, Councillor Raine acknowledged that Hampton’s behaviour was unreasonable. The tribunal heard that Trevaskis disclosed his disability around anxiety and the fact that the respondent’s workplace was hostile and affecting his health, particularly because some councillors, Hampton chief among them, were insisting that he was contactable throughout the week and at short notice, despite him being contracted to do only an average of five hours per week.
Cllr Raine asked him if he wanted to “just resign” and Cllr Sneddon suggested that if Tevaskis was to resign, that a local volunteer could do his job instead, thus saving the council money. To the tribunal, this suggested that the council’s resolution to the difficulties was for the claimant to resign, not for the respondent to do anything to improve the situation.
However, during this meeting, it was agreed that members would undertake additional training on their legal responsibilities, the claimant’s appraisal and pay review would proceed, his backdated pay would be reviewed, and he would receive a council mobile phone to allow him to better switch off from the demands of the role. Cllr Raine agreed to provide a written summary of the meeting, but no summary was ever received by the claimant, and no adjustments were made, or any actions taken to address the issues raised.
On 1 August 2023, Tevaskis received a letter summarily terminating his employment, written by Cllr Raine. He replied on 7 August noting he considered the letter was disability discrimination.
Following his dismissal, the council accused Tevaskis of theft for failure to return council-owned items. However, Tevaskis considered he should not have to pay to return items when he was owed money by the council. On 18 January 2024, Cheshire Police contacted the claimant regarding allegations of theft of multiple items made by the respondent. No charges were brought against the claimant by the police.
The court noted that as soon as a courier was arranged to attend Tevaskis’s property to collect the documents, the matter was resolved.
Once the tribunal case started the council refused to take part in it, with Raine having threatened to report it the police for harassment. Her email to the tribunal stated: “Further contact will be referred to the police as harassment as I feel threatened, anxious and intimidated by the emails received.”
The entire council resigned in July 2024 because of the legal dispute with Trevaskis. The judge noted there was “clearly a febrile atmosphere of complaints, gossip and speculation by local residents, such action is reasonably perceived by the claimant as being hostile, threatening and distressing.” This has had a detrimental effect on his mental wellbeing and private life.
Trevaskis was awarded a £48,913 payout, but there is doubt over how this will be paid.
