Employment Judge W AndersonIn person for claimantDate 14 October 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim of unlawful deduction from wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 is upheld in part.[2]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £142.15 (less any necessary deductions for tax and national insurance, such deductions to be set out clearly in a written statement sent to the claimant at the same time as payment is made) by no later than 14 days from the date on which this judgment is sent to the parties.
REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent in June and July 2023. Exact dates were not agreed between the parties. He brings a claim of unpaid wages for the period of his employment. The respondent’s case is that lawful deductions from the claimant’s wages were in excess of the wages due and therefore his claim should be dismissed.
The Hearing
[2]The claimant filed documents in February 2025 and a statement on 15 June 2025 in compliance with case management orders. The statement was not copied to the respondent, but the documents were. This is clear as some of those documents were included in the respondent’s bundle titled ‘Claimant’s images’. The respondent filed a bundle, two witness statements and an opening statement at 11.30pm on the night before the hearing. The respondent confirmed that it had not previously filed any documents for this case. Towards the end of the hearing the respondent, at my request, filed a dismissal letter dated 15 July 2023. Mr Ahmed said this should have been in the bundle and he was not clear why it was not. I gave the claimant the chance to comment on the document and he said he had never seen it before.[3]Mr Ahmed and the claimant gave evidence on oath. Ms Richardson, a witness for the respondent, did not attend the hearing and accordingly I gave little weight to her statement.[4]I clarified with the claimant that his name is Peter A Quaicoe and the recording of his name as Peter Peter on the ET1 and then, subsequently, in tribunal communications was simply an error.[5]Due to technical issues suffered by the respondents, documents not being correctly filed with all parties, and the tribunal being unable to locate the claimant’s originally filed documents, the evidence was not complete until the end of the three hours allocated for this hearing, and I reserved judgment. Relevant findings of fact Chronology[6]I find that the claimant was employed by the respondent, a sandwich shop, as a sandwich maker, for the period 24 June 2023 until 14 July 2023. The contract documents in the respondent’s bundle are signed and dated by the claimant on 24 June 2023. His training record shows that training took place on 24 June. The claimant accepted that he had signed the documents disclosed. The claimant set out in his ET1 that the dates of employment were 15 July 2023 to 15 August 2023. By his own evidence this cannot be correct as he presented a rota for the week commencing 12 July 2023 in which he was working on 12, 13 and 14 July. Furthermore, there is an email from the claimant to Mr Ahmed (the owner of the respondent company) dated 15 July 2023 in which he states: ‘What did I do to let you call me such a nonce word pay me my money!!!!!!!’, indicating that the event that led to dismissal had already occurred. Additionally, the claimant accepted that he had seen an email of 8 August 2023 in which it is set out by Mr Ahemd that the claimant’s store key has not been returned, and he is not to come near the shop. These two emails indicate that dismissal would have taken place before 15 August 2023.[7]Under the terms of the claimant’s contract the respondent is authorised to make deductions for:a. Lock and fob replacement resulting from negligent actions of the employee, or failure to follow procedures as follows: ‘We also reserve the right to deduct the cost of any loss, repair or replacement from any monies owing to you. This includes cost of lock/fob replacement…’b. Training where employment is terminated within four months of the commencement of employment. A deduction of 15 hours pay is authorised as follows: ‘I Peter Quaicoe agree that if I leave employment within 4 months of employment or my employer terminates my employment within 4 months whatever the reason the company has the right to deduct 15 hours of salary from my pay which is a deduction towards my training.’c. Uniform which is not returned on termination, amounting to £35 in total across various itemised pieces of uniform as follows: ‘Upon notice of termination by either party, I will return provided Uniform clean and in a satisfactory condition prior to final pay. Failure to do so will result in deduction of costs: T-shirt £12, Hat/Visor £8, Name Badge £5 and Apron £10.’[8]Mr Ahmed said that when a new employee commences employment, two copies of a contract are produced and one is given to the new employee. The claimant said that he had been given a copy of the contract on 24 June 2023 but had left it at work that day. He said it had been retained by Mr Ahmed. The claimant said that he had asked for a copy of the contract and the respondent had not provided this. The claimant said that he had not read the contract. He had just signed it.[9]I find that the claimant was provided with a copy of his contract which he misplaced. I find that he did not ask for a further copy of it until 19 October 2023, some three months after his dismissal, as evidenced in the email from the claimant to Mr Ahmed dated 19 October 2023.[10]The claimant was dismissed by the respondent for gross misconduct on 14 July 2023. The nature of the conduct is not relevant to this claim.[11]Mr Ahmed said that the claimant was sent a letter of dismissal by post on 15 July 2025. The claimant said he had received no such letter and that he had never seen that letter before today. I accept the claimant’s evidence on this matter and find that no letter of dismissal was sent. It is not clear why it would have been posted when the parties were communicating by WhatsApp and email. The letter refers to Mr Ahmed asking for the key on 14 July 2023, before the claimant left the store, however that is not referred to in Mr Ahmed’s witness statement or in the grounds of response, despite being an important and relevant matter, whereas the two emails of 22 July and 8 August concerning keys are referred to in both.[12]Mr Ahmed sent the claimant an email on 22 July 2023 as follows: Hello Mr Peter Could you please confirm when we will be getting store keys back? Shenly store[13]The email was sent to the claimant’s email address peter56459_qr8@indeedemail.com. The claimant said that he did not get the email at the relevant time as he did not check that email address often. He said he did not see it until he received the email of 8 August 2023 to another email address. I note that the email he sent to Mr Ahmed on 15 July 2023 was from the indeed address and is asking a question. I find from this that the claimant would have been checking for a response, that he clearly did use this account and find that he did read the email from Mr Ahmed about the key, on or around 22 July 2023.[14]On 8 August 2023 Mr Ahmed sent the respondent a further email as follows: Peter We have asked you previously to return store keys due to this being ignored this has been reported to the police also the locks will be changed and you will be invoiced can we also remind you if you are seeing anywhere any other store the Police will be alerted! Thank You[15]The claimant said that at this point he did not know how to return the key as he had been told not to go to the store. When he commenced early conciliation, he was told by ACAS that the respondent would not pay him as he had not retuned the key. He said that he posted it back to the respondent. Ms Rafiq said the respondent had not received the key. I do not need to make a finding on whether the key was returned after reconciliation started, for the purposes of this claim[16]The respondent’s evidence is that it changed the locks on 11 August 2023 as the key had not been returned. It submitted a copy of an invoice dated 11 August 2023 in the sum of £457. When Ms Rafiq referred the claimant to this document in cross examination, he said that it was a forgery. He said that he had dialled the number shown on the invoice last night when he received the bundle and it was unobtainable. Ms Rafiq noted that would have been after 11.30pm. The claimant did not put to Mr Ahmed in cross examination that the document was a forgery or challenge in cross examination his written evidence that the locks were changed. Where the claimant had been dismissed, had not returned the key and this had been reported to the police, I accept that the respondent did have the locks changed on 11 August 2023. Hours worked and wages due[17]The claimant’s hourly rate was £10.42. Mr Ahmed said that the claimant was on a zero hours contract and was entitled to a 30 minute unpaid break if he worked more than six hours. I accept this evidence as it was not disputed by the claimant.[18]The respondent provided rotas for all but the final week of the claimant’s employment showing working hours as follows:a. w/c 21.6.23 - 1 hourb. w/c 28.6.23 – 14 hoursc. w/c 05.7.23 – 18 hours (including one shift in excess of 6 hours)[19]The claimant provided a further rota for the final week as follows: a. w/c 12.7.25 – 26.5 (including three shifts in excess of 6 hours)[20]Mr Ahmed said this amounted to 59 hours paid work completed by the claimant, including deductions for the half hour unpaid break on shifts over six hours. I find that it amounts to 57.5 hours.[21]The claimant said that he had worked more hours than shown on the rota. He had worked late which is why he had been given a key. In his grounds of claim he said he was owed wages of £1200. This would amount to approximately 115 hours over three weeks of his employment. In the hearing he said approximately £1400 was owed but he did not have a record of his hours. He said the respondent could have disclosed the clock in and clock out times. I have taken into account that the respondent only filed its disclosure at 11.30pm on the night before the hearing but it had not been in compliance with case management orders since February 2025 and the claimant had made no enquiry of it as regards this and had not brought it to the attention of the tribunal.[22]Furthermore, the claimant had kept no record of his hours and was not able to say what they were in even vague detail. The claimant said that he worked on 17 and 18 July, as shown on the rota. I have found above that he did not as he was dismissed on 14 July 2023.[23]I note from the respondent’s disclosure that the claimant was training on both 24 June 2023 and on 2 July 2023 when he was not on the rota. There is nothing in the contractual documents before me to indicate that training would be unpaid and I find that where the respondent has specifically set out a deduction in the contract for training costs in certain situations, training is paid.[24]I find that neither of the parties provided fully credible evidence on the matter of hours worked. While I do not accept that the claimant worked 115 hours or more in the period of his employment, I find that the respondent’s figure of 59 hours is also incorrect as(i) it is not the sum of the hours shown on the rotas, and(ii) no time has been included for the two training days.[25]The respondent said it made the following deductions from the claimant’s wages:a.£35 for uniform supplied but not returned in line with the contract.b. 15 hours of pay as a cost towards training where the claimant’s employment ended within 4 months of it commencing, which amounts to £156.30.c.£457 for changing the locks[26]This is set out in the witness statement of Mr Ahmed and in the ET3 but there is no evidence in the witness statement or in the bundle, other than a reference in a WhatsApp message from Mr Ahmed on 18 July 2023 to him telling the claimant ‘the full procedure towards pay’, that it was set out in this itemised way to the claimant, in writing or verbally, and I find that it was not. The respondent did not provide the claimant with a pay slip or slips for the period of his employment. The claimant therefore did not receive a payslip in which deductions were itemised. Law, Decision and Reasons[27]Employment Rights Act 1996 c. 18 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.(2) In this section “relevant provision”, in relation to a worker's contract, means a provision of the contract comprised— (a) in one or more written terms of the contract of which the employer has given the worker a copy on an occasion prior to the employer making the deduction in question, or (b) in one or more terms of the contract (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) the existence and effect, or combined effect, of which in relation to the worker the employer has notified to the worker in writing on such an occasion.(3) 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.(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in so far as the deficiency is attributable to an error of any description on the part of the employer affecting the computation by him of the gross amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion.(5) For the purposes of this section a relevant provision of a worker's contract having effect by virtue of a variation of the contract does not operate to authorise the making of a deduction on account of any conduct of the worker, or any other event occurring, before the variation took effect.(6) For the purposes of this section an agreement or consent signified by a worker does not operate to authorise the making of a deduction on account of any conduct of the worker, or any other event occurring, before the agreement or consent was signified. …[28]On the evidence before me I find that the claimant worked 57.5 hours in his role as sandwich maker (calculated on the basis of the rotas provided and the information that shifts over 6 hours attracted a 30 minute unpaid break) and a further 15 hours over two days for training. I have used fifteen hours as representative of training time on the basis that the maximum deduction for training is 15 hours and the evidence is that training took place over two days. I accept that wages are not the only costs associated with training but as noted above the evidence on hours worked was limited.[29]This amounts to 72.5 hours at £10.42 per hour, and a gross wage of £755.45.[30]I accept that the deductions relating to the key replacement (£457) and the training (£156.30) are authorised by the contract and the respondent did not contravene s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 in deducting these sums from the claimant’s wages.[31]I find that the deduction for uniform was not authorised by the contract. The relevant clause refers to notice by either side and uniform being returned before final pay. No notice was given as the claimant was summarily dismissed. Furthermore, he was told not to attend the store so could not return the uniform. There was no evidence before me that it was raised with him that the respondent thought he was in breach in relation to this clause and a deduction would be made. I find that where the claimant was unable to comply with the clause because of the manner of the termination of his employment, i.e. without notice, and because he could not return to the respondent’s premises, the deduction was unlawful for the purposes of s13 Employment Rights Act 1996.[32]I therefore find that the claimant is owed £142.15 (gross) in unpaid wages from the respondent and his claim of unpaid wages is upheld in part. Approved by: