Mr A Dinu v RV Recruitment Ltd: 3305609/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent must pay to the claimant the sum of £668 being the net amount of unpaid wages unlawfully deducted from what was paid and, hence, due to him.REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent as an HGV driver from September 2021 until April 2024. At the time of leaving the respondent’s employment it is agreed that a final sum of wages, for which he had received a wage slip, was unpaid. The sum in question was £668. He claims that sum as unpaid wages.[2]The respondent says that the claimant was not paid the sum because he had stolen a sound bar worth £55.87 from a client whose goods he was transporting. He denies that.[3]The respondent says it was entitled to deduct £340.87 from his wages. However, it did not even pay the balance. It says this was because the claimant did not provide bank details, albeit that the claimant says (and I find) that the details remain the same as those previously used to pay him. The £340.87 is made up of the value of the sound bar and charges for the client’s and the respondent’s time taken to investigate the matter.[4]Orders were made by the employment tribunal in September 2024 for the parties to exchange documents, agree a bundle and exchange witness statements. None of this was done, although the respondent did send some documents to the tribunal and produced significantly more before me.[5]Those documents originally produced did not include any contract of employment for the claimant. The claimant was able to produce what he said was his contract of employment at the hearing. It contained two clauses permitting deductions from wages; one required specific agreement to deduct particular sums, the other related to tax and accident insurance excesses.[6]The respondent then produced, on a mobile phone, a more recent contract which it is accepted the claimant did sign. It had a different clause relating to accidents. That clause talks about “accidents or incidents” and expands the sums that the driver may be required to pay to include a range of matters including reputational losses and loss of goods. It is in extremely general terms and I consider that the way it begins by talking of the need to notify the respondent of any accident or incident is indicative of its intended meaning and ambit.[7]Section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 deals with the right not to suffer unauthorised deductions from wages and provides as follows: “13 Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions. (1) An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless— (a) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision or 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.”[8]I have to ask whether the clause of the claimant’s more recent contract would cover the deductions referred to above. I do not consider that it would. I find that the clause is intended to cover accidents or incidents to or involving the vehicle being driver by the claimant. If the respondent had intended the clause to be of wider effect, I believe that this would have had to be spelt out clearly and precisely. The payment of wages is a fundamental aspect of any contract of employment and any provision which derogates from the right to be paid contractual wages therefore needs to be clearly expressed.[9]Furthermore, I am not satisfied that even if losses by theft could be said to be covered by the clause that this would assist the respondent. I so find for two reasons.9.1 The alleged theft is disputed and I could not conclude on the available evidence that the claimant was a thief. I have some statements from the client’s staff, but they are not here to give evidence and the evidence from them in those statements is not conclusive. It amounts to an interpretation of what they say they could see on CCTV evidence which itself is not before me.9.2 The clause, even if read to encompass the kind of deductions referred to by the respondent, does not appear to me to permit the deduction of sums said to be the time cost of the client’s and respondent’s investigations by their employees. Furthermore, I have before me no evidence to show how those sums were calculated.[10]In those circumstances, the claimant is entitled to judgment for the whole sum of the sum of £668 as shown on his wage slip but never paid. If the respondents wish to seek to sue him for the sums which they sought to deduct from his wages, they must do that elsewhere. Whether such sums could be recovered from him is a matter for whoever may hear any such claim. Employment Judge Andrew Clarke KC Date: 21 December 2024 T Cadman Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practicedirections/