Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson loses school job appeal

Joe Anderson Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Mr Anderson claimed the school got "kudos" as a result of being "associated with the Mayor of Liverpool".

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson has lost the latest round of his legal challenge for compensation from a school in the city where he used to work.

He claims he was unfairly dismissed by Chesterfield High School when new bosses terminated his contract in 2011.

When the school became an academy they said his £4,500-a-year employment "arrangement" was "inequitable".

A judge has dismissed his appeal against an employment tribunal ruling he was not entitled to compensation.

Mr Anderson claimed the school got "kudos" as a result of being "associated with the mayor of Liverpool".

Judge Daniel Serota said Mr Anderson - who can claim an annual allowance of nearly £80,000 as the directly elected mayor - started work at the school in 2001 when it was under local authority control.

He had been employed as a senior learning mentor, a title later changed to "social inclusion officer", on a salary of £29,000.

'No benefit'

Mr Anderson stopped working at the school five years ago after he became leader of Liverpool City Council on an allowance of about £50,000 a year, said the judge.

The local authority which then controlled the school - Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council - agreed he could continue as a staff member under legislation which allows employees to hold public office.

The authority agreed to pay him the "maximum allowed as paid leave" - 208 hours a year - and had "held open" his post and continued to pay pension contributions.

When the school became an independent academy in late 2011, new bosses said pupils were getting "no benefit" for the £4,500 a year paid to Mr Anderson, so "terminated the agreement".

In a written ruling, the judge dismissed Mr Anderson's appeal and suggested Mr Anderson had "not given sufficient attention" to how the arrangement "might look to outsiders".

He suggested it might be considered a "reverse ... zero hours contract" and could have been a "public relations disaster for the school".

"The school was reasonably entitled to regard the arrangement as inequitable and unsustainable."

More on this story

Related Internet links

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites