June Jackson v ITC Compliance Ltd: 1401761/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim in respect of unlawful deductions from wages is dismissed. Employment Judge Street Dated 14 September 2018 Judgment was given orally. Written reasons will not be provided unless they are asked for within 14 days of the sending of the written record and will be entered (and remain) on the website if issued.[2]Case No: 1401761/2018 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant June Jackson Respondent ITC Compliance Ltd Heard at: Bristol On: 14 September 2018 Employment Judge: M Street Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: No attendance CORRECTED JUDGMENT The claim in respect of unlawful deductions from wages is dismissed. Employment Judge Street Dated: 14 September 2018 Judgment sent to the parties on: 30 October 2018 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Judgment was given orally. Written reasons will not be provided unless they are asked for within 14 days of the sending of the written record and will be entered (and remain) on the website if issued.[3]Case No: 1401761/2018 10.8 Reasons – rule 62(3) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs J Jackson Respondent: ITC Compliance Ltd Heard at: Bristol On: 14 September 2018 Before:REASONS
[1]Evidence 1.1. The Tribunal heard from Ms Jackson. The respondent had provided three witness statements and agreed the bundle but did not attend. That was due to an error in the email address in use by the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal read the witness statements and the documents referred to in the bundle.[2]Issues 2.1. The claimant claims £791.64 to be due to her on termination of her contract of employment arising from unlawful deduction of wages 2.2. The issue before the Tribunal to decide are as follows. Was the claimant, from October 2016 paid less in wages than she was entitled to be paid and if so, how much less? Case No: 1401761/2018 10.8 Reasons – rule 62(3)[3]Findings of Fact 3.1. The claimant started work with ITC on 1/10/15. 3.2. Her initial salary was agreed at £19,000. 3.3. There was a review in May 2016. 3.4. Her understanding of the discussion was that she would receive an increase of £500 per annum immediately, increasing by £1000 each October from October 2016. 3.5. Her pay was increased by £1000 with immediate effect. 3.6. That is recorded in an email from Matt Cocks issued to the finance manager Ben Chick on 23/05/16, “With effect from 1st May her salary will increase by £1000 to £20,000 pa”. 3.7. That letter was not copied to her. 3.8. The change would have showed in payslips, on comparing earlier with later months. She did not check her payslips and did not realise the salary rise had been higher than she expected. 3.9. There was no pay review with effect from October 2015. Her pay continued to be based on £20,000, the figure reflected in the payslips. 3.10. There was a contractual change to her employment on 16/12/16, reducing her salary by £384.62 in return for an additional 5 days holiday for the 2017 calendar year That is a reduction by one week’s pay based on contractual salary of £20,000. It is formally recorded that that letter constitutes a change to her contract of employment. She signed in consent (17). That is pursuant to a system that the company has for the “purchase” of additional holiday. 3.11. That figure reflects the company’s reliance on a contract of £20000. Ms Jackson signed in acceptance of that without checking the figures. 3.12. A contract and written statement of terms and conditions was issued and signed by her on 27/04/17. That sets out that her salary is £20,000 per annum. The contract was issued in respect of other changes to terms and conditions, allowing flexi-time. She accepted the changes. She did not challenge the salary figure at the time. 3.13. She was paid an ex gratia payment of £600.85 in September in lieu of lower statutory sick pay entitlement, after raising a challenge earlier that month. 3.14. On 26/10/17, she raised the question of salary, “At my last review we discussed pay and how this would increase each year by £1000. Naturally as this is my anniversary, I would like to ensure that this arrangement is still honoured and will be reflected in my pay.” 3.15. That did not lead to a salary review. 3.16. Ms Jackson gave in her notice in December 2017, and agreed a termination date of 31/01/18 with Jason Lewis, Director. She hoped to return, personal plans permitting (32). Case No: 1401761/2018 10.8 Reasons – rule 62(3) 3.17. On 24/01/18, Matt Cocks confirmed that her last pay increase had been in May 2016. He was recommending consideration of a pay review from October 2017. The correspondence suggests that that would accord with policy in that reviews were to be based on the anniversary of appointment. 3.18. Ms Jackson specifically raised with her manager Marc Hulin her expectations in respect of pay (34), “Could I add to this that I was advised that my pay would increase by £1000 each year….. by now I would have expected my pay to have increased by £2000 from May 2016. 3.19. In January 2018 Jason Lewis told her that he had been authorised by Deb Smith to offer her a 3% pay rise back to October 2017. 3.20. That was not accepted and the pay rise was not paid. 3.21. In February 2018, Ms Jackson raised a formal grievance, which was not resolved to her satisfaction. 3.22. Her grievance on 8/02/18 was based on having been paid an increase of £500 per annum from May 2016, but she now acknowledges that it was in fact £1000 per annum, more than she said was agreed. 3.23. She now calculates that the sums due to her have been underpaid by £791.64.[4]Law 4.1. Entitlement to pay depends on the terms of the contract. 4.2. Key terms of the contract reflect what was agreed between the parties. Pay is an essential term of the contract. The contract will show what is properly payable for the work done. 4.3. A contract may be in writing or oral or a mixture of the two. 4.4. The written statement of particulars is strong evidence of the terms of the contract, although it may not be conclusive.