Mrs A Paun and Mr I Paun v Greenfield Holdings Ltd: 1400223/2024 and 1400225/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1400223/2024, 1400225/2024
Between
Mrs A Paun (1) Mr I Paun (2)ClaimantGreenfield Holdings LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge WoodheadIn person for claimantNot in attendance for respondentDate 13 December 2024
JUDGMENT
[1]Mrs Paun’s complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is wellfounded.[2]The respondent shall pay the Mrs Paun £423.07 (£22,000/52) as damages for breach of contract. This figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that Mrs Paun will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.[3]Mr Paun’s complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is wellfounded.[4]The respondent shall pay the Mr Paun £538.46 (£28,000/52) as damages for breach of contract. This figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that Mr Paun will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. Cleaning and preparation of guest rooms[5]Mrs Paun’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages (cleaning and preparation of guest rooms) is well-founded. The respondent made an 1 of 16 unauthorised deduction from Mrs Paun’s wages in respect of the last two weeks of Mrs Paun’s employment. This also amounted to a breach of contract.[6]The respondent shall pay Mrs Paun £337.50, which is the gross sum deducted. Mrs Paun is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. Bonus[7]Mr Paun’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages/breach of contract (bonus) is not well-founded and is dismissed.[8]Mrs Paun’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages/breach of contract (bonus) is not well-founded and is dismissed. Holiday pay[9]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from Mr Paun’s wages (and was in breach of contract) by failing to pay Mr Paun for holidays accrued but not taken on the date Mr Paun’s employment ended.[10]The respondent shall pay Mr Paun £215.38 (£28000 / 260 x 2). Mr Paun is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance.
REASONS
THE HEARING
[1]This issues in this claim were discussed and agreed at a preliminary hearing for case management on 22 August 2024 (“the CMPH”) and are reproduced in the Appendix to this document.
THE HEARING
[2]At the CMPH this claim was listed for a hearing of 3 hours to start at 10am. At the CMPH orders were also given for disclosure, preparation of a bundle and preparation and exchange of witness statements. The Claimants disclosed documents nine days late. There was no evidence of the Respondent having disclosed any documents and it failed to produce the file of documents as ordered. Neither party prepared or exchanged witness statements. However, in their disclosure the Claimants prepared word documents outlining their position on each of the following topics (“the Position Statements”): Offer Letter of Employment Contract of Employment[3]Payslips[4]Tax Code Error[5]Gross Pay Underpayment[6]Unpaid Wages re Preparing Guest Rooms[7]Holiday Pay[8]Bonus payment 2 of 16[9]Working Hours[10]P60s 3. I had been able to put the documents available to me, including the Claimants’ disclosure and Position Statements into a single PDF before the start of the hearing (“the Bundle”). In this decision pages in the Bundle are referred to as follows [NUMBER]. 4. On the morning of the hearing I was sent the following email from the Respondent which had not been copied to the Claimants: Sent: 12 December 2024 14:47 Subject: Re: 1400223/2024 Mrs A Paun & 1 other v Greenfield Holdings Ltd c/o Austin Greenfield Hi, Are we able to do an afternoon meeting as I will be travelling in the morning. I did ask this at the last meeting. […] 5. The Case Management Orders had been sent to the parties on 2 September 2024 and made clear that the hearing would start at 10am. I asked the Clerk to send out the following correspondence to the parties: SUBJECT: Urgent – the hearing this morning - Case Numbers: 1400223/2024 and 1400225/2024 The Tribunal have tried to contact you by telephone this morning but have been unable to reach you. Yesterday afternoon you sent an email to the Tribunal saying “Hi, Are we able to do an afternoon meeting as I will be travelling in the morning. I did ask this at the last meeting.” Employment Judge Woodhead has asked me to write to you as follows: The final hearing of this claim was listed on 22 August 2024 and details, including the fact that the hearing was to start at 10am, were included in EJ Self’s case management orders which were sent to the parties on 2 September 2024. Please join the hearing as soon as possible. If you do not the hearing may proceed in your absence. 6. I then updated the Claimants on the position. Having done so I asked the clerk to call the Respondent again. She was unable to reach the Mr Greenfield and I decided to wait until 10:30 to see if we had had any response to the Tribunal’s email. There was none. The Claimants explained to me that Mr Greenfield had sent Mr Paun an email on 17 October 2024 at 15:22 asking when Mr Paun would be available to talk. Mr Paun had replied on 18 October 2024 to let Mr Greenfield know his availability the following day, but Mr Paun had heard nothing from Mr Greenfield since then. Mr and Mrs Paun had misunderstood the requirements in respect of witness evidence, English not being their first language and they had not prepared a bundle (Mr Greenfield having failed to do so as Ordered) because 3 of 16 they did not have a computer. Mr Greefield had submitted no witness statement to the Claimants or to the Tribunal. 7. At 11am I asked the Tribunal clerk to send the parties the 112 page bundle that I had prepared saying: SUBJECT: Bundle - Case Numbers: 1400223/2024 and 1400225/2024 Please see attached the bundle of documents prepared by EJ Woodhead from the documents held on file by the Tribunal and sent to the Tribunal by the Claimants on 10 September 2024. 8. At 11:12 Mr Greenfield sent the following email to the Tribunal and to the Claimants: Subject: Re: Urgent – the hearing this morning - Case Numbers: 1400223/2024 and 1400225/2024 I am not available at that time. After the bundle was sent: 9. At 11:14 he sent a further email as follows: Subject: Re: Bundle - Case Numbers: 1400223/2024 and 1400225/2024 Many thanks for this. I'm not back. 10. The Respondent’s application for a postponement was not in accordance with rule 30A of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and the Rules of Procedure contained in Schedule 1 (“the Rules”). It had not been presented to the Tribunal and communicated to the other parties as soon as possible after the need for a postponement had become known (the parties were told of the time of the hearing, if not on 22 August 2024 then on 2 September 2024). It was not in accordance with the overriding objective to grant a postponement to the afternoon and the circumstances described by Mr Greenfield were not exceptional (which the rules define as circumstances including ill health relating to an existing long term health condition or disability).[11]I decided that it was in the interests of justice and the overriding objective to proceed with the hearing as listed under Rule 47 Non-attendance which provides: If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[12]The Claimants both gave an oath on the holy bible and I then asked them about the basis for their claim by working through the List of Issues and referring to the Position Statements and other relevant documents in the bundle. The hearing concluded at around mid-day and I told the Claimants that I would consider their 4 of 16 evidence and issue a written judgment with reasons in due course. The Respondent did not appear at any point in the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
[13]Having considered all the evidence, I find the following facts on a balance of probabilities.[14]The parties will note that not all the matters that they told me about are recorded in my findings of fact. That is because I have limited them to points that are relevant to the legal issues. The Respondent did not give evidence but I took note of the ET3’s submitted by the Respondent. Employment, duties, hours and responsibilities[15]Mr Paun was employed by the Respondent as Manager of the Lamb Inn No2 in Ringwood from 17/08/2022 to 17/09/2023 when he resigned with immediate effect. Mrs Paun was employed by the Respondent at the same establishment as Assistant Manager from the later date of 16 October 2022 and she resigned with immediate effect on the same date as her husband. They were not provided with contracts of employment by the Respondent and I accept their oral evidence that they asked for written contracts on many occasions. The Lamb Inn No2 is a pub/restaurant but also provides bed and breakfast.[16]I accept the Claimants’ evidence [84] that their hours of work were very long given the opening hours of The Lamb Inn and that the Claimants also had to:16.1 Make visits to Booker for pub food supplies16.2 Make visits to the Railway Pub, Christchurch to collect bar supplies16.3 Check in guests outside the pub opening hours – I accept their oral evidence that this was sometimes at highly antisocial times such as 1:30am.16.4 Prepare breakfasts for guests of The Lamb16.5 Clean the kitchen and make oil changes. Rate of pay[17]I accept the Mr Paun’s evidence that there had been agreement between him and the Respondent that Mr Paun would be remunerated at £28,000 per annum (not the £27,000 per annum that he was in fact paid). However, the consequent shortfall in his pay over the period of his employment was not part of his claim. I accept Mr Paun’s oral evidence that he did not know of the shortfall until after his employment ended. It was only after his employment ended that he received payslips. Mrs Paun was entitled to £22,000 per annum and this is the rate she was paid [102-112]. The Claimants were entitled to be paid their annual salary in equal monthly instalments [78-112].[18]I accept the Claimants’ evidence [78] that they were not issued with their payslips on a monthly basis despite repeatedly asking Mr Greenfield for them. 5 of 16 Payslips were emailed to Mrs Paun in September 2023 and to Mr Paun in October 2023 (in both cases after their employment had ended). This meant that Mrs Paun was therefore not able to check the tax code applied to her Gross Pay and that she did not realise that it was incorrect until she received an HMRC letter. Mr and Mrs Paun both received HRMC letters which read as follows: Mr Paun [64-65] 17 July 2023 […] Tax calculation for the year 6 April 2022 to 5 April 2023. You have paid too little tax. You owe HMRC £57.40 Mrs Paun [66-67] 23 August 2023 […] Tax calculation for the year 6 April 2022 to 5 April 2023. You have paid too little tax. You owe HMRC £577.20[19]I accept Mr Paun’s evidence that on behalf of himself and his wife he repeatedly raised the question over the shortfall in tax with Mr Greenfield but did not get a response. I accept the Claimant’s evidence [79] that the Respondent failed to add Mrs Paun to the Payroll software using the correct tax code of 1257L W1/M1 and failed to update her YTD earnings from her previous employment and that this resulted in Mrs Paun paying no tax during her employment with the Respondent. Whilst Mr Paun did have tax deducted from his pay there was nonetheless a shortfall, albeit more modest, of £57.40. This situation was compounded by the fact that the Claimants were not provided with payslips. I accept that both Claimants attempted to speak to the Respondent regarding their tax underpayments with HMRC and Mr Greenfield laughed and said it was not his fault and on another occasion said he would look into it but did not revert to the Claimants. Notice[20]The Claimant’s were not provided with contracts of employment but said that they did not consider that they would have had an entitlement to more than statutory notice. Accordingly I find that they were entitled to 1 weeks’ notice pursuant to Section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”). Holiday[21]The Claimant’s were not provided with contracts of employment but I accept that they had an annual entitlement to holiday of 28 days per annum. I accept Mr Paun’s evidence [82] that, as regards his holiday: 6 of 1621.1 He accrued 28 days between 18/08/2022 and 17/08/2023;21.2 He accrued 2 days between 18/08/2023 and 17/09/2023;21.3 He took 25 days’ leave (two weeks in September 2022, one week in January 2023 and two weeks in April 2023);21.4 On the termination of his employment he should therefore have been paid in lieu of 5 days holiday but was in fact paid in lieu of three days (24 hours see [101]) and was not paid in lieu of the remaining two days. Pay for cleaning guest rooms[22]I accept the Mrs Paun’s evidence [81] that the Respondent had a verbal agreement with her that, the regular cleaner having left, she would clean the guest rooms at the Lamb Inn at the rate of £12.50 per hour for 13.5 hours work per week for each of the last two weeks of her employment (totalling 27 hours). I accept her evidence that she was not paid for those hours. This is slightly different to the way the claim is set out in the List of Issues but I accept it as an amendment in the interests of justice. Bonus[23]The day before the Claimants resigned was the day of the Ringwood Carnival and it was an exceptionally busy day. The Claimants were required to work with no support and were unable to prepare proper meals for their children and give them the attention that they needed. They complained to Mr Greenfield but he did nothing to resolve the issue. That day at 13:52 Mr Greenfield sent Mr Paun a message saying: Jonny, I have left as I feel extremely uncomfortable. Alan is around to Help and Randys grandson has offered. I will give you and Andrea a bonus.[24]There was no discussion or agreement on the amount of the bonus. As to Mr Greenfield’s comment that he had left as he felt “extremely uncomfortable”, I accept the Claimants’ oral evidence that on the balance of probabilities he felt uncomfortable because he knew how unhappy the Claimants were about the pressures they were under, were considering resigning and he knew it was not fair how he was treating them. The bonus amount was not agreed between the Claimants and Mr Greenfield. In evidence the Claimants said that they believed that two days’ extra pay was reasonable. Circumstances surrounding the Claimants’ resignations[25]I accept the Claimants’ oral evidence that they lived in a flat above the restaurant in the Lamb Inn and that Mr Greenfield knew that they had young children that would be living with them when he offered them employment. We accept that the flat did not have utilities and that the Claimants therefore needed to use the restaurant kitchen to feed their children and that Mr Greenfield forbade the children’s access to the kitchen (which may have been for health and safety reasons). I accept their oral evidence that over the course of the summer of 2023 they were due to have Monday as a day off but could not do so because of 7 of 16 guest bookings. I reference above that the Respondent accepted guest bookings with arrival times in the middle of the night. I accept the Claimants’ evidence that having resigned with immediate effect, they had to find somewhere else to live with their children in only 10 days. THE LAW Unlawful deduction from wages
THE LAW
[26]The Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) provides: 13 Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless— (a) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision or a relevant provision of the worker's contract, or (b) the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction.(2) In this section “relevant provision”, in relation to a worker's contract, means a provision of the contract comprised— (a) in one or more written terms of the contract of which the employer has given the worker a copy on an occasion prior to the employer making the deduction in question, or (b) in one or more terms of the contract (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) the existence and effect, or combined effect, of which in relation to the worker the employer has notified to the worker in writing on such an occasion.(3) Where the total amount of wages paid on any occasion by an employer to a worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion (after deductions), the amount of the deficiency shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as a deduction made by the employer from the worker's wages on that occasion. […] 14 Excepted deductions […] (3) Section 13 does not apply to a deduction from a worker's wages made by his employer in pursuance of a requirement imposed on the employer by a statutory provision to deduct and pay over to a public authority amounts determined by that authority as being due to it from the worker if the deduction is made in accordance with the relevant determination of that authority. 8 of 16 […] 23 Complaints to employment tribunals (1) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal— (a) that his employer has made a deduction from his wages in contravention of section 13 (including a deduction made in contravention of that section as it applies by virtue of section 18(2)), […] (2) Subject to subsection (4), an employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented before the end of the period of three months beginning with— (a) in the case of a complaint relating to a deduction by the employer, the date of payment of the wages from which the deduction was made, or (b) in the case of a complaint relating to a payment received by the employer, the date when the payment was received. (3) Where a complaint is brought under this section in respect of— (a) a series of deductions or payments, or (b) a number of payments falling within subsection (1)(d) and made in pursuance of demands for payment subject to the same limit under section 21(1) but received by the employer on different dates, the references in subsection (2) to the deduction or payment are to the last deduction or payment in the series or to the last of the payments so received. (3A) Section 207B (extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of subsection (2). […] 24 Determination of complaints (1) Where a tribunal finds a complaint under section 23 well-founded, it shall make a declaration to that effect and shall order the employer— (a) in the case of a complaint under section 23(1)(a), to pay to the worker the amount of any deduction made in contravention of section 13, […] (2) Where a tribunal makes a declaration under subsection (1), it may order the employer to pay to the worker (in addition to any amount ordered to be paid under that subsection) such amount as the tribunal considers appropriate in all the circumstances to compensate the worker for any financial loss sustained by him which is attributable to the matter complained of. 9 of 16 […] 26 Complaints and other remedies Section 23 does not affect the jurisdiction of an [employment tribunal] to consider a reference under section 11 in relation to any deduction from the wages of a worker; but the aggregate of any amounts ordered by an [employment tribunal] to be paid under section 12(4) and under section 24 (whether on the same or different occasions) in respect of a particular deduction shall not exceed the amount of the deduction. […][27]Meaning of “wages” etc (1) In this Part “wages”, in relation to a worker, means any sums payable to the worker in connection with his employment, including— (a) any fee, bonus, commission, holiday pay or other emolument referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract or otherwise, […] but excluding any payments within subsection (2). […] (4) In this Part “gross amount”, in relation to any wages payable to a worker, means the total amount of those wages before deductions of whatever nature. Contract formation 27. For any contract to have been formed, there are a number of essential components:27.1 an intention to create legal relations;27.2 offer;27.3 acceptance;27.4 consideration; and27.5 sufficient certainly as to the terms.[28]There is no legal requirement for an employment contract to be in writing. It therefore follows that there is no requirement for a contract to be signed by both parties to be binding.[29]Contracts of employment can be formed, varied and terminated through express agreement, whether in writing or orally. They can also be formed and varied through conduct. Acceptance of a new or varied contract can be implied where an 10 of 16 employee has been issued with a contract and works under it, even though they do not sign and return it.[30]The test as to whether a contract has been formed, varied or terminated is objective. The tribunal must have regard to what a reasonable observer would think. That is not to say that the subjective states of the minds of the parties involved are entirely irrelevant. They are part of the overall factual matrix that needs to be considered. Breach of Contract - Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 (“the Order”)[31]Article 2 of the Order provides: “This Order does not enable proceedings in respect of a contract claim to be brought before an employment tribunal unless—(a) the effective date of termination (as defined in section 55(4) of the 1978 Act) in respect of the contract giving rise to the claim, or (b) where there is no effective date of termination, the last day upon which the employee works in the employment which has terminated, occurs on or after the day on which the Order comes into force.”[32]Article 3: “Proceedings may be brought before an employment tribunal in respect of a claim of an employee for the recovery of damages or any other sum (other than a claim for damages, or for a sum due, in respect of personal injuries) if—(a) the claim is one to which section 131(2) of the 1978 Act applies and which a court in England and Wales would under the law for the time being in force have jurisdiction to hear and determine;(b) the claim is not one to which article 5 applies; and(c) the claim arises or is outstanding on the termination of the employee's employment.”[33]Article 5 provides: “This article applies to a claim for breach of a contractual term of any of the following descriptions—(a) a term requiring the employer to provide living accommodation for the employee; (b) a term imposing an obligation on the employer or the employee in connection with the provision of living accommodation; (c) a term relating to intellectual property; (d) a term imposing an obligation of confidence; (e) a term which is a covenant in restraint of trade. In this article, “intellectual property” includes copyright, rights in performances, moral rights, design right, registered designs, patents and trade marks.”[34]The best known summary of the applicable test for a claim of constructive dismissal was provided by Lord Denning MR in Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27: “If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment; or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract; then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of his employer’s conduct. He is constructively dismissed. The employee is entitled in these circumstances to leave at the instant without giving any notice at all or, alternatively, he may give notice and say he is leaving at the end of notice. But the conduct must in either case be 11 of 16 sufficiently serious to entitle him to leave at once. Moreover, he must make up his mind soon after the conduct of which he complains: for, if he continues for any length of time without leaving, he will lose his right to treat himself as discharged. He will be regarded as having elected to affirm the contract.”[35]In Tullett Prebon PLC and Ors v BGC Brokers LP and Ors Maurice Kay LJ endorsed the following legal test at paragraph 20: “… whether, looking at all the circumstances objectively, that is from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the innocent party, the contract breaker has clearly shown an intention to abandon and altogether refuse to perform the contract.”[36]Unreasonable conduct alone is not enough to amount to a constructive dismissal (Claridge v Daler Rowney [2008] IRLR 672). If an employee is relying on a series of acts then the tribunal must be satisfied that the series of acts taken together cumulatively amount to a breach of the implied term (Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd [1985] IRLR 465). In addition, if relying on a series of acts the claimant must point to the final act which must be shown to have contributed or added something to the earlier series of acts which is said, taken as a whole, to have broken the contract of employment (Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2005] IRLR 35 CA).[37]With regard to trust and confidence cases, Dyson LJ summarised the position thus in Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2005] IRLR 35 CA: The following basic propositions of law can be derived from the authorities: 1. The test for constructive dismissal is whether the employer’s actions or conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment: Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v Sharp [1978] 1 QB 761. 2. It is an implied term of any contract of employment that the employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee: see, for example Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20, 34H – 35D (Lord Nicholls) and 45C – 46E (Lord Steyn). I shall refer to this as “the implied term of trust and confidence”. 3. Any breach of the implied term of trust and confidence will amount to a repudiation of the contract, see, for example, per Browne-Wilkinson J in Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1981] ICR 666 CA, at 672A; the very essence of the breach of the implied term is that it is calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship. 4. The test of whether there has been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence is objective. As Lord Nicholls said in Malik at page 12 of 16 35C, the conduct relied on as constituting the breach must: “impinge on the relationship in the sense that, looked at objectively, it is likely to destroy or seriously damage the degree of trust and confidence the employee is reasonably entitled to have in his employer”. Wrongful dismissal[38]A constructive dismissal without notice is a dismissal in breach of contract in common law. If the Claimants were constructively dismissed, they were also wrongfully dismissed. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS[39]As I have set out in my findings of fact, the Claimant’s were subjected to the treatment about which they complain. I find that that the conduct complained of, culminated in and excessive burden of work in the summer of 2023 and in particular on 16 September 2023 during the festival. The pressures of work were such that the Claimant’s were not given adequate time off and were overburdened (including having to admit guests in the middle of the night). They were not provided with payslips despite repeatedly asking for them and this meant that they did not learn of problems with the tax that had not been deducted until HMRC wrote to them. Given that they had young children and would need, in a short space of time, to find a new home for themselves and their children on tendering their resignation, I find that it cannot have been an easy decision to have made. The fact that they did feel it necessary to resign with immediate effect is reflective of the poor conduct of the Respondent towards them. I find that conduct was in fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and, even if it was not calculated to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between the Claimants and the Respondent, it was likely to do so and did do so. Mr Greenfield’s message of 16 September 2023 (and the Claimant’s interpretation of the message as I set out and accept above) is reflective of this. The Respondent had no reasonable and proper cause for treating the Claimants as it did and they resigned because of the Respondent’s breach without delay. Accordingly the Claimants were constructively dismissed by the Respondent. Wrongful dismissal; notice pay[40]The Claimants having been constructively dismissed and having resigned with immediate effect (without notice or payment in lieu of notice) they were also wrongfully dismissed and are each entitled to one week’s pay in lieu of notice. Unauthorised deductions (Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996) /Breach of Contract[41]Cleaning and preparation payment: For the reasons I have set out above, I accept that Mrs Paun had a contractual agreement that she would be paid £12.50 per hour for 13.5 hours per week for preparing and cleaning guest rooms during the last two weeks of her employment. I find that she was not paid for this work and that the failure to pay her the amount of £337.50 was a breach of contract and an unlawful deduction from wages. 13 of 16[42]Bonus: As regards the claim that each Claimant made for a bonus for staying to the end of the day on 16 September 2023 during the Ringwood Carnival, I find that, whilst Mr Greenfield appears to have abused the trust of the Claimants in making the offer of an unspecified bonus and then not paying it, the Claimants did not have an entitlement to the bonus claimed because the amount of the bonus was never specified and, as such, there was insufficient certainly as to the terms for there to have been a contractual agreement. As such the Claimants have not suffered the alleged breach of contract or unlawful deduction from wages. Holiday Pay (Working Time Regulations 1998)[43]For the reasons I have explained in my findings of fact, Mr Paun was not paid in lieu of all of the holiday that he had accrued but not taken on the termination of his employment. Accordingly he is entitled to a payment in respect of two days’ holiday amounting to £215.38 (£28000 / 260 x 2).