A music instructor has lost his tribunal claim for alleged sex discrimination against the education department.

Garry Reynolds’s claim was the first equal pay case to come before the employment tribunal under the 2017 Equality Act.

He described himself as a fully qualified teacher of brass instruments with 30 years’ experience of teaching in this specialist field.

Mr Reynolds was initially taken on as a consultant by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture (DESC) in 2011 before being employed as a part-time teacher.

Despite having a degree in brass teaching after studying at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, and having been paid as a qualified teacher in Scotland, he was taken on by the DESC as an unqualified teacher as he didn’t have a Post Graduate Certificate in Education.

To achieve the same rate of pay as his ‘qualified’ colleagues, it was agreed he would only have to work for 30 days instead of 39 but would be paid as if doing 39.

He later entered a zero hours contract as a supply teacher to work extra hours during the remaining nine weeks of the academic year.

Mr Reynolds claimed sex discrimination under the Equality Act in relation to his remuneration and cited three female colleagues who he had said had been paid more.

He also alleged breaches relating to his terms and conditions of employment and notice of change of conditions.

The DESC denied all allegations.

Mr Reynolds was an accomplished musician with a strong background of training and experience. the tribunal accepted.

But it said it was unfortunate that his Scottish status did not match the department’s requirements and so he had since 2012 been regarded as ‘unqualified’ – as he well knew.

His sex discrimination claim based on one of the three colleague’s pay had been struck out at an earlier hearing as that employee had only been appointed in 2019.

The second colleague he had cited as a comparison had unlike him obtained qualified teacher status and was therefore appropriately paid on the higher ‘main pay’ scale. In respect of this, the tribunal said it had no hesitation in dismissing Mr Reynolds’ claim.

When it came to the third female colleague, the DHSC admitted that, on a full-time equivalent basis, they had been paid more favourably than Mr Reynolds.

But it turned out that due to an internal accounting error they had actually been overpaid.

The correct amount is now being paid as from December 2024 but the department confirmed it would not seek to claw back the overpayment which recently had been approaching £30 per month.

The tribunal said it was satisfied on the evidence that the payroll mistake was the sole reason for the differential.

All claims were dismissed.

In his complaint lodged in January this year, Mr Reynolds made mention of allegations of victimisation, harassment and bullying.

But at the tribunal hearing, he said he didn’t intend to pursue this detriment allegation as he was not interested in obtaining money and no findings of fact were made in relation to this.