Mr A Rasool v Safe Hands Care and Support Services: 2403246/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent has made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £130.35.REASONS
[1]The claimant’s claim was heard on 13 and 30 January 2025.[2]The claimant was employed by the respondent, a company providing care services, from 4 March 2024. His employment ended on 2 April 2024.[3]The claimant claims that the respondent has made an unlawful deduction from wages in that he has not been paid the sum of £175.55 that he claims he is owed by the respondent. The respondent has offered to pay this sum as goodwill, but this was not accepted by the claimant.[4]There is no dispute that the claimant’s claim was brought in time.[5]The claimant gave sworn evidence. Mr Saeed gave evidence on behalf of the respondent.[6]I have had regard to documents produced by both parties, including a table produced by the claimant, and added to by the respondent, which set out their respective accounts of hours worked, a timesheet showing the hours worked and tasks undertaken by the claimant, as well as bank statements showing transfers to the claimant’s account by the respondent. Issues for the Tribunal to decide[7]It is accepted that the claim is brought in time. It is accepted that the claimant was an employee of the respondent.[8]The issues for the Tribunal to decide may be summarised as follows: a. Did the respondent make unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and if so, how much was deducted?[9]It is accepted that the claimant worked for the respondent at a rate of £10.42 an hour. It is accepted that he was working during March and April 2024 and it is accepted that he undertook shadowing at the start of his employment.[10]The issues that are in dispute are the number of hours worked, the amount of mileage that the claimant incurred and whether shadowing should be paid at a different rate to a normal working day.[11]In relation to hours worked, the claimant submits that he worked 65.5 hours. The respondent submits that he worked 57.5 hours. The parties agree that four hours of work on his first day of employment were spent shadowing another employee.[12]In relation to mileage, the claimant submits that he is owed £24.36. The respondent submits that no evidence has been produced to support the mileage claim.[13]In relation to shadowing, the claimant submits that he did one day of shadowing at the start of his employment, and he was not told that this would be paid at a different rate. The respondent submits that the claimant did one day of shadowing and was told that this would initially be paid at half the rate of his normal working day with the remainder being paid at the conclusion of his probation period. The Findings of Fact Relevant to the Issues[14]I have made the following findings of fact based on the balance of probability from the evidence I have read, seen, and heard. I do not make findings in relation to all matters in dispute but only on matters that I consider relevant to deciding on the issues currently before the Tribunal.[15]I accept the respondent’s figures in relation to the hours that the claimant worked. This evidence is drawn from the respondent’s records. I found it particularly significant that where the claimant had underclaimed the number of hours worked, for example, on a day when he said he worked nine hours and the records showed that he worked ten hours the respondent was ready to correct the claimant’s error, which I took as being a significant feature demonstrating the credibility of the respondent’s evidence.[16]I accept that the hours worked were 63.5 hours. I accept that shadowing would be paid at half the rate of other work, I understand there is no documentary proof of this but I accept the evidence of the respondent that shadowing was paid differently to normal working hours, and the claimant did refer to shadowing work being different to other work in his evidence. I accept that the claimant finished work before the end of his 12-week probationary period.[17]Based on my assessment of the hours worked and the rate of pay for shadowing work I therefore conclude that the amount of pay that the claimant was entitled to during his employment was £661.67.[18]I have seen bank statements demonstrating that the respondent has already paid £531.32 to the claimant. That leaves £130.35 outstanding. The respondent has explained that that is a clerical error and I accept their evidence on this point.[19]Turning to the mileage claim that is made, it is for the claimant to prove the loss which he says he is entitled to recover. In relation to mileage, whilst it is accepted that the claimant would have done some driving as part of his job, there is no evidence showing precisely what distance was travelled, when it was travelled and what mileage was therefore incurred. The relevant law Unlawful deduction from wagesThe relevant law
[20]Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) provides that an employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker so employed unless the deduction is required or authorised by statute, or by a provision in the worker’s contract advised in writing, or by the worker’s prior written consent.[21]Under section 13(3) of the ERA 1996 there is a deduction from wages where the total amount of any wages paid on any occasion by an employer is less than the total amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion. The Tribunal’s conclusions[22]Given my conclusions above in relation to hours worked and the rate of pay for shadowing work I find that there has been an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £130.35.[23]This reflects gross wages. The claimant may or may not depending on his other earnings be liable for tax on those earnings.[24]I do not find that there is sufficient evidence for me to determine that the claimant is entitled to mileage incurred during his employment. I therefore do not find that there has been any unlawful deduction of wages in relation to not providing payment for any mileage incurred.