Mr P Tsangouris v Dimitrios Mousiaris Transport Ltd: 2407301/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2407301/2023
Between
Mr P TsangourisClaimantDimitrios Mousiaris Transport LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge McDonaldRepresenting himself with assistance from his wife for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 19 August 2024
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claim that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages succeeds. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant £3,776.67 which is the gross sum deducted.
REASONS
[1]The claimant brought a claim on 7 July 2023 claiming that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from his wages. The respondent sent a response form to the Tribunal but did not give any reasons for defending the claim. The Tribunal wrote to the respondent to order it to provide more details of its defence, but it did not do so.[2]At the final hearing today, the claimant attended with his wife. We had the benefit of Greek interpretation from Ms Kiose for which I am very grateful.[3]The respondent did not attend. The Tribunal attempted to contact the respondent on the telephone number on its response form. There was no answer from the respondent and the claimant says that the respondent’s director has left the country because of other claims brought against the respondent.[4]Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 permits a Tribunal to proceed with a hearing in the absence of a party if they feel to attend or be represented. Before doing that the Tribunal is required to consider any information which is available to it about the reasons for the party’s absence. The Tribunal had no information from the respondent about why it did not attend. I decided it was in the interest of justice to proceed in the respondent’s absence.
Relevant Law
[5]In relation to a claim for deduction from wages, s.13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) says: "(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of a worker employed by him unless-(a) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision of 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.”[6]S.27(1) of ERA says: "(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”[7]S.13(3) of ERA says: "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."[8]In New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church 2000 IRLR 27, CA the majority of the Court of Appeal held that a worker would have to show an actual legal, although not necessarily contractual, entitlement to the payment in question in order for it to fall within the definition of “wages”. Findings and Conclusions[9]I heard sworn evidence from the claimant about his wages. He gave his evidence in Greek through our interpreter He confirmed that he was not paid any of the amount shown in his payslip for March 2023. The gross amount shown on that payslip was £3,176.67. In addition, the claimant's sworn evidence was that he had not been paid for 5 days in April. He had worked four of those days and on the other day the respondent had failed to provide him with work. There was no evidence from the respondent to contradict what the claimant told me. There was nothing in its response form to contradict what the claimant told me. There was no evidence to suggest the deduction of wages was authorised.[10]In those circumstances I accepted the claimant’s evidence as true and find the respondent did fail to pay him wages to which he was entitled for the whole of March 2023 and for 5 days in April 2023.[11]There was no payslip relating to the 5 days in April. The claimant was entitled to an hourly rate of £11 per hour but also to additional allowances for nights out and for meals. The claimant’s figure for the amounts due on a gross basis for the five days was £600. Doing the best with the information before me it seemed to me that figure was consistent with what was shown on the payslip for March 2023.[12]In those circumstances I gave judgment for the claimant for the total amount of £3,776.67 gross (£3176.67 for March 2023 and £600 for 5 days in April 2023).[13]I explained to the claimant that because his claim was for unpaid wages I could not award compensation for the way that the respondent had acted towards him and his wife, however reprehensible that may be.[14]I gave oral reasons for my judgment at the hearing and the claimant requested those reasons in writing. These written reasons are not worded exactly the same as the reasons given orally, e.g. I have set out the relevant law in more detail, but the substance of my decision remains the same.