Ms D Bizhyk v 1 Ace Training Ltd: 3200732/2025
JUDGMENT
It is the judgment of the Employment Tribunal that the Respondent pay the Claimant £1,020 in respect of unlawful deductions made from her salary under Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’).REASONS
[1]In her Claim Form lodged at the Employment Tribunal on 19 August 2025, the Claimant asserted that she was employed by the Respondent as an Office Administrator between 24 February 2025 and 31 May 2025. When she resigned from her employment, she informed the Respondent that it owed her £200 in respect of an unpaid training fee for the first week of her employment and £820 in respect of her last two weeks of employment. In its Response Form dated 2 November 2025, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not work for the Respondent having attended an interview after applying for a job but not being appointed. It denied owing the Claimant any monies.[2]The Employment Tribunal wrote to the parties on 6 October 2025 confirming that the hearing would take place by video on 23 February 2026 at 2:00 PM giving the login details to the parties and setting out directions to the parties to be ready for the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, I noted that the Claimant was in attendance. Despite the Respondent lodging its Response Form, and being notified of the hearing, the Respondent did not attend the hearing. After waiting 20 minutes for the Respondent to join the hearing, I decided to proceed in the Respondent’s absence. I had in front of me the Claim Form, the Response Form along with the hearing notice dated 6 October 2025. I also had text messages from the Claimant that showed the work that she did for the Respondent during employment as well as texts to the Respondent confirming the payments owed to her.[3]The issue for me to determine was whether the Respondent made unlawful deduction of wages under Section 13 ERA 1996. Was the Respondent entitled to make a deduction of £200 in respect of a training fee for the first week of service and a deduction of £820 with respect to the final two weeks of service from the Claimant’s wages.Facts
[4]The claimant was employed under a contract of employment that she signed between 24 February 2025 and 31 May 2025. She signed the written contract of employment although a copy was never provided to her by the Respondent. She was required to work 45 hours per week but often worked overtime that was unpaid. She confirmed that the Respondent promised to pay her £200 for her first weeks training and when she left, she was not paid for her final two weeks employment in respect of £820. Despite making efforts formally and informally with the Respondent to request payment of these sums, the Respondent did not pay the amounts that she claimed. She referred me to text messages confirming the demands for payment as well as various text messages indicating the work that she did throughout her service with the Respondent.[5]In respect of the Respondent stating in its Response Form that the Claimant did not work for the Respondent, she indicated that this was not true referring me to the text messages detailing the work that she undertook for the Respondent during the period of her employment. Law Unlawful Deduction from Wages.Law
[6]Section 13 ERA 1996 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. Certain deductions are excluded from protection by virtue of s14 or s23(5) of the ERA. 10. Under Section 13(3) 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. Tribunal’s Conclusions[7]After having reviewed the Respondents Response Form and its assertion that the Claimant did not work for it, I found that on the basis of the Claimant’s evidence, she did work for the Respondent during the period 24 February to 31 May 2025. I accepted her evidence that the Respondent confirmed it would pay her the sum of £200 for her first weeks training and I also accepted her evidence that she was not paid for her last two weeks of service for the Respondent in the sum of £820. I did not accept the Respondents assertion that the Claimant did not work for the Respondent. As a result, given the fact that the Claimant was not paid for her first weeks training in the sum of £200 and in respect of her final two weeks service in the sum of £820, I awarded her these sums. The Respondent is ordered to pay her a total of £1020.