Mr L Hunt v GS Plumbing, Heating and Gas Ltd: 4100118/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]the claim under s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of One Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty-Nine Pounds and Ninety-Five Pence (£1,249.95), subject to the appropriate deductions for Income Tax and National Insurance, as unlawful deductions from wages. E.T. Z4 (WR)[2]the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of Nine Hundred and Sixty- One Pounds and Fifty Pence (£961.50), as a payment in lieu of annual leave, subject to the appropriate deductions for Income Tax and National Insurance.REASONS
[1]The claimant, Mr Lee Hunt, claimed that he was due unpaid wages and accrued holiday pay when his employment with the respondent Company (“GS Plumbing”) ended on 10 December 2024. His claim was denied by the respondent. In short, the respondent maintained that it was entitled to deduct from any payments due to him the cost of remedial work it had to carry out and other costs it had incurred, due to the claimant’s alleged faulty workmanship and the fact that he left his employment early before the end of his agreed notice period.The evidence
[2]I first heard evidence from the claimant. I then heard evidence on behalf of GS Plumbing from Mr Gurthag Singh, Managing Director and owner of the business.[3]The claimant had also submitted a number of documents which were on file (“C”).The facts
[4]Having heard the evidence and considered the documentary productions, I was able to make the following findings in fact, relevant to the issues with which I was concerned.[5]The claimant started his work with the respondent Company on 19 August 2024 as a Plumber/Gas Engineer. On 7 October, Mr Singh sent the claimant his employment contract (C5). In the covering e-mail he said this: “We have been really happy with your start so far”, along with a smiling emoji.[6]Despite these sentiments, Mr Singh met the claimant on or about 4 December 2024 when he proposed reducing his salary from £50,000 to £42,500 or alternatively engaging him on a “sub-contractor” basis. When this was rejected by the claimant, it was agreed that his employment would terminate on 20 December 2024.[7]Following the meeting, Mr Singh sent an e-mail to the claimant to confirm that they had come to, “an amicable agreement to terminate your employment with our Company on Friday 20 December” (C4).[8]Mr Singh also said this in his e-mail:- “If you could please complete any outstanding or warranty jobs before the Friday 20 December. You may need to do some of these jobs in your own time, as we’ve already paid you to complete them during working hours.”[9]In his e-mail response (C6) the claimant disputed that the termination of his employment was an “amicable agreement”. He said this in his e-mail:- “I must clarify that the termination of my employment was not an amicable agreement, but rather the result of the Company informing me it could no longer afford my salary and subsequent decision not to accept a reduction to £42,500.” He also took exception to Mr Singh requiring him to complete “outstanding or warranty jobs” in his own time.[10]The relationship between the claimant and Mr Singh soured thereafter and the claimant left his employment in the afternoon of 10 December 2024, without warning. He did not work his notice period to 20 December 2024, as had been agreed.[11]Mr Singh was very unhappy at the claimant’s sudden departure. He sent him an e-mail to express his annoyance (C1). He also said this in his e-mail:- “As per our contract, which you have breached, you’ve cost our company a lot of money and we’re entitled hold (sic) back funds to recoup these costs. Again the amount of customer refunds, discounts and freebies we’ve had to give out to keep our customers happy due to your poor workmanship & incompetence, not to mention the amount uncompleted work & warranty calls (sic). Our Company will not be paying any further salary, holiday entitlement etc. Please note this is your own doing as you never completed your notice period.” Discussion and Decision[12]I was satisfied, on the evidence, that the claimant was due the 6.5 days’ wages and the 5 days’ accrued annual leave which he claimed, when his employment ended. The issue for me was whether the respondent was entitled to withhold payment.[13]The respondent relied upon the following clause in the contract (C5):- “Deductions from wages: The Company reserve the right, during or upon termination of employment, to deduct from your salary and/or any other monies due to you an amount equivalent to any of the following: Any overpayment of salary, remuneration or any other payment made to you during the course of your employment. The outstanding amount of any loan or advance made by the Company to you. Any cost of repairing any damage or loss of property; including damage to Company vehicles or trailers, any fines/charges imposed, any other losses sustained by the or other party (sic) caused by your breach of contract, breach of the Company’s rules or as a result of your negligence or dishonesty. Any Company property that you fail to return to the Company upon termination of your employment. Any unauthorised absence. Any absence from work due to adverse conditions when the business is open and operating as usual. You agree to repay any sums still owing to the Company under this subclause upon termination of employment which cannot be satisfied by making a deduction from your final wage.”[14]Although the contract was not signed by the parties, the claimant accepted that he had received a copy and it was clear that the parties’ working relationship was governed by its terms. I was satisfied, therefore, that the contract accurately reflected the agreement between the parties.[15]The claimant disputed that remedial work was required due to his faulty workmanship or negligence. He denied that he was in breach of contract.[16]So far as the respondent was concerned, I did not hear any evidence about this other than a very general assertion by Mr Singh that the costs he incurred remedying the claimant’s alleged poor workmanship and as a consequence of his early departure, were more than what was due to him by way of unpaid wages and holiday pay. There was no evidence about the nature of any remedial work which was required and no details of the costs involved.[17]Further, the positive sentiments expressed by Mr Singh about the standard of the claimant’s work, at least in the first two months of his employment, the fact that in early December he was prepared to continue to employ him, albeit at a reduced salary, and the reference to an “amicable agreement” about termination of employment, did not suggest that his work was as bad as Mr Singh alleged, latterly.[18]On the evidence, therefore, I was not persuaded that the respondent was entitled to make any deductions and withhold payment of the sums lawfully due to the claimant.[19]In arriving at this view, I was also mindful that Mr Singh had access to legal advice as he said in the “PS” to the e-mail he sent to the claimant after he had left (C1). I was also mindful that in the Notice of Hearing which the Tribunal sent to the parties, several weeks before the Hearing, on 23 April 2025, guidance was given on calling witnesses along with a Case Management Order which included directions for the submission of documents for the Hearing. He was afforded ample opportunity, therefore, of leading evidence about the costs he had incurred and submitting supporting documents, but did not do so.[20]Whether the respondent may have a claim in the civil courts against the claimant for the cost of any remedial work or for any loss which the respondent incurred due to him leaving his employment early, before the expiry of the notice period, were not issues which I was required to consider. Further, there was no counterclaim pled by the respondent.[21]I arrived at the view, therefore, that the claims were well-founded. Unpaid wages[22]The claimant produced details of his calculations along with a wage slip (C2). He did not receive payment of his wages for his “lie week”, at the start of his employment, or for the 1.5 days he worked on 9 and 10 December. I was satisfied , therefore, that he was due 6.5 days by way of unpaid wages.[23]He had a salary of £50,000 per annum which equates to £192.30 per day.[24]The respondent is required, therefore, to pay the claimant the sum of £1,249.95 (£192.30 x 6.5), subject to the appropriate deductions for Income Tax and National Insurance, in respect of the unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages. Holiday pay/annual leave[25]The claimant was entitled, in terms of his contract to 28 days paid annual leave (C5). When his employment ended, he had accrued 9 days’ annual leave for the 4 months he worked for the respondent. He had taken 4 days’ paid leave during that period which left a balance of 5 days.[26]The respondent is also required, therefore, to pay the claimant the sum of £961.50 (5 x £192.30), subject to the appropriate deductions for Income Tax and National Insurance, by way of accrued annual leave.