A judge has ruled that Penketh Parish Council must pay a former clerk more than £800 for the unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract.
It follows the resignation of former Penketh Parish Council clerk Joanne Locke in August last year. Penketh Parish Council says it is going to appeal the decision describing it as “flawed in both process and substance.”
Judge Tobin sitting at an employment tribunal in Manchester, who said: “It is difficult to see any prejudice to the respondent that was not of their own making or caused by their own ineptitude,” ruled:
1. The Response was presented out of time and, pursuant to rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the respondent’s application for a time extension is refused.
2. The claimant’s claim that she suffered an unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract is well founded. The claimant was not paid her accrued and untaken annual leave entitlement amounting to £423.60 gross. The claimant is also owed pay for her notice period of £423.60 gross.
3. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the amount of £847.20. This award is made gross and may be liable for deduction for tax and national insurance, if appropriate. The respondent may make appropriate deductions so long as this is confirmed to the claimant in writing and appropriately accounted to HMRC.
The claimant said that she resigned from her employment in August 2024. She claimed that she was due her holiday pay and her final week’s pay as notice and that these had not been received by the time she issued proceedings.
The Tribunal sent the respondent a notice of claim and notice of hearing which advised that a Response was due on 18 December 2024. The claimant sent documents related to her claim to both the respondent and the Tribunal on 10 December 2024.
On 16 January 2025 Cllr Michael Potts wrote to the Tribunal saying that he had been advised by his legal representatives to obtain a Notice of Claim and Claim Form from the Tribunal as these had not been received. This request was compiled with immediately by the Employment Tribunal and the next day (i.e. 17 January 2025) the respondent’s representatives (Peninsula) went on the record. At this point the Response was over 4 weeks out of time.
The respondent did not present a Response until 26 February 2025, which was the day of this hearing. The Response was accompanied by an application to extend time for presenting the Response.
In summary and conclusion Judge Tobin said: In weighing the appropriate factors, the respondent fails on every element of the test.
Notwithstanding that the respondent’s defence is arguable (although short of meritorious) for the holiday pay dispute (only), the respondent had 28-days to provide a Response. I suspect that even if the Response was provided in the aftermath of the respondent’s professional representative confirming their instruction the Tribunal would have accepted the late Response. But to provide a Response the day of the substantive hearing in these circumstances is unjustifiable. For the reasons set out above, I refuse to extend time.
The claim, as explained by the claimant, is with merit. I award compensation to the claimant in the amount of £847.60 gross.
In support of the former clerk, former parish Cllr Craig Lenihan posted on social media:
“Over recent years, the relationship between Penketh Parish Council and its clerks has frequently been a topic of conversation. Each time concerns about the high turnover of staff and rumours about their treatment arose, certain council members dismissed them as nonsense, asserting that all departing clerks left amicably. The reality was often different, but previous clerks chose discretion and privacy, preferring not to publicly challenge the council’s narrative. Those aware of the truth respected their decision.
“However, one former clerk, Jo Locke, has had no choice but to come forward publicly after being forced to pursue an employment tribunal to receive money owed to her by the council. Jo joined Penketh Parish Council in April 2023, bringing a strong CV and an approachable personality, ideal for the clerk role. Despite unfair treatment by certain councillors who refused to support her training or resented that their preferred candidate was not appointed, Jo performed her duties exceptionally well. She was particularly instrumental in managing the legal requirements of the council whilst still able to positively contribute towards the pool business and continued to show commitment even while navigating significant personal challenges. They lost yet another good clerk through their own actions.
“I appreciate you might consider my view biased, having served on the council myself for six years. Therefore, for a clearer, official picture of the issues at Penketh Parish Council, the details of the employment tribunal are publicly available and speak for themselves:
“Whilst I would hope the personal impact this ineptitude (The Judges word not mine) has had on Jo would be enough to resonate with you; we must also not forget how much this has cost you and I in additional legal fees and associated costs. Every Cllr should take a long hard look at themselves for allowing this to happen.”
In response, Penketh Parish Council issued the following statement: “Penketh Parish Council notes the outcome of the recent Employment Tribunal involving a former employee, Joanne Locke. We fundamentally disagree with the decision, which we believe is flawed in both process and substance, and we have submitted the necessary documentation to appeal.
At the time of the claim, the Council was without any officers following Ms Locke’s immediate resignation due to a family emergency — a situation we supported fully. Despite the operational difficulties this created, the Council acted responsibly throughout, engaging a professional HR provider and doing its best to comply with all requirements under challenging circumstances.
“The Tribunal’s assertion that this was a “last-minute defence” is simply inaccurate. The Council did not receive the full details of the claim in advance — including no dates for the alleged annual leave owed, and no explanation for the claim of an additional week’s pay. Ms Locke was paid in full as a salaried employee through to her final working day at the end of August and completed an exit interview with the chairman. Her assertion that she was hourly-paid is factually incorrect and was only raised during the hearing itself, leaving the Council unable to present a proper defence.
“Efforts were made to resolve the matter beforehand. The Council wrote to the claimant ahead of the hearing but received no response. We also wrote to her after her departure to award a backdated salary increase — even though we were under no obligation to do so, we felt it was the right thing to do. These letters were returned unopened.
“The Council is now currently seeking to recover overpayments made during Ms Locke’s employment, which will be pursued through the appropriate channels.
“While we have made every effort to respect the former employee’s privacy and mental wellbeing, we have been forced to issue this statement following media enquiries and social media commentary — including posts by former councillors with clear personal agendas. We strongly refute any suggestion that the Council acted improperly or without due care for its employees.
“Penketh Parish Council remains a responsible employer that provides professional support to its staff. We stand by our actions and will continue to take the necessary steps to correct the record and ensure the facts are properly considered.”
A full copy of the findings can be read by CLICKING HERE
