Mr Dale Mills v Mr D Durnford T/a DPD Dunstable: 3300610/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The judgment of the tribunal is that the claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeds to the extent further set out below. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant £375.00.REASONS
[1]This is a claim for unlawful deduction from wages brought by the claimant against his former employer.[2]The claimant’s period of employment with the respondent was short. It lasted only between Tuesday, 6 November 2018 and Monday, 12 November 2018.[3]The respondent is a courier business. The claimant was employed, albeit briefly, as a driver.[4]Mr Durnford interviewed the claimant by telephone in connection with a driving job. The respondent is a franchisee running a courier business. The arrangements for the employment were informal. The claimant understood that more formal terms would follow. However, matters did not proceed that far.The Evidence
[5]The claimant gave evidence as to the terms of the arrangement he entered into with Mr Durnford. The claimant would provide driving duties as a courier for the respondent. The respondent agreed to pay a shift rate of £100 for the driving duties and 50% of that sum for training shifts.[6]In his claim form and in his evidence the claimant said the he worked three training shifts on 6 November, 7 November and 8 November 2018; and two driving shifts on 10 and 12 November 2018. Mr Durnford failed to pay the claimant anything at all in respect of either the training shifts or the driving shifts.[7]In his claim form and in his evidence the claimant said he was required by Mr Durnford to obtain a DBS check. The claimant did so for which he paid £25. The claimant showed the Tribunal a text message from Mr Durnford to the claimant on 10 November in which Mr Durnford explicitly says to the claimant that he will reimburse him the cost of the DBS check. Mr Durnford did not do so.[8]There were no written particulars of employment, or indeed anything in writing at all, which evidenced the employment relationship. It follows that there was no written authority provided to Mr Durnford to deduct any sums from any wages owed by him to the claimant.[9]Considerable efforts have been made by the claimant to recover his unpaid wages and the reimbursement of his DBS check payment. All those efforts have been to no avail. Put shortly, Mr Durnford has simply ignored the claimant and has blocked the claimant’s mobile telephone number leaving the claimant with no way of pursuing his outstanding payments.[10]Mr Durnford is understood by the claimant to be a franchisee of DPD Group and it is understood that Mr Durnford holds that position in his personal capacity.[11]I accepted the claimant’s evidence as truthful in its entirelty.The Relevant Law
[12]Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) provides that a worker has the right not to suffer unauthorised deduction from their wages.[13]Section 23 ERA provides a right for a worker to present a complaint to the Employment Tribunal that the employer has made an unlawful deduction from their wages, contrary to Section 13.[14]Section 13(2) ERA provides that the amount of any deficiency between the total amount of wages paid and the total amount of wages properly payable by the employer to the worker should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the worker’s wages.Conclusion
[15]The claimant was entitled under the terms of his orally agreed contract of employment to receive £50.00 for each of his three training shifts. The claimant was entitled to receive £100.00 for each of his two driving shifts. As recorded above he received nothing at all for his services.[16]The amount properly payable in respect of the claimant’s work was £350.[17]The claimant was entitled to be reimbursed the cost of his DBS check in the sum of £25.00. As recorded above, this was not paid.[18]The total deductions made from the amount properly payable is therefore £375.00.