Ms M Lanham v Ms M Rimmer T/a Highgrade House Skin Clinic: 3314499/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent has made unauthorised deductions form the claimant’s wages and is ordered to pay her the net sum of £32.50.REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent on 14 July 2020 as a Beauty Therapist.[2]The claimant worked 20 hours per week, five hours a day from Tuesday to Friday. She was paid £6.50 per hour, £130 per week.[3]The claimant handed in her notice on 19 October 2020. She worked on that Tuesday and also on the Wednesday and Thursday. She did not work on the Friday.[4]The claimant accepted that she had training outside Highgrade House for acrylic and eyelash extensions.[5]No documentation has been placed before me concerning how much the training costs but Ms Rimmer told me, and I accept, that it was £240.[6]The claimant’s claim is as follows:-6.1 Her final wage slip indicated that she was entitled to be paid £130 plus outstanding holiday owed of £211.90, total £341.90.6.2 The claimant’s final wageslip (which I have not seen) apparently made the following deductions: Income Tax: £7.20 National Insurance: £11.27 Course fees: £240 Notice not worked: £65.6.3 The deductions total £323.47 and the claimant was paid £18.43.[7]The respondent accepted that a deduction of £65 should not have been made as the daily rate id £32.50. Thus, I find that, the claimant is entitled to judgment for £32.50 which should not have been deducted.[8]The sole issue is whether the respondent was entitled to deduct the training fees.[9]It is common ground that shortly after beginning her employment the claimant was provided with a form of contract of employment by the respondent. Although I have not seen a copy of that document, it was accepted that it contains the following clause:- “All training funded by Highgrade House must be paid back if the employee choses to leave within the first year of the training carried out”.[10]Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 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 relevant provision of the worker’s contract, …(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 …”[11]The claimant accepts that the form of contract was given to her shortly after she began working for the respondent, which was obviously prior to the deductions complained about.[12]The claimant told me she took it home and read it as far as the annual holiday section which in error stated two weeks rather than four weeks. The claimant said that thereafter she stopped reading the contract. Nevertheless, I find that she was provided with a copy of her contract of employment which she had the opportunity to read.[13]The claimant told me that she took the contract of employment back to Ms Rimmer and pointed out that the holiday entitlement was incorrect. The respondent told me that she corrected the holiday entitlement and put the contract on file. Ms Rimmer understood that it was otherwise agreed.[14]Thereafter, the claimant continued working until resigning on 19 October 2020.[15]I find that the deduction of training fees was authorised to be made by the contractual term relied upon and that a copy of the contract had been supplied to the claimant prior to the deduction being made.[16]The claimant put great store on the fact that she neither knew of the clause nor had signed the contract. In my judgment, the fact that the claimant had not read the entirety of the contract of employment was down to her and that the respondent could reasonably assume that she had read it as she had identified an error which had been corrected. I find that the claimant’s conduct in continuing to work for three months affirmed the written terms of her contract of employment and that the clause formed part of her contract of employment.[17]Consequently, the claim for £240 fails.