Mr E Gartland v Paton Bros Scaffolding: 6005191/2024
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claim is upheld. The respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £506.00 (gross).REASONS
[1]The claimant worked for the respondent as a labourer. He was contracted to work for 44 hours per week. He commenced his employment on 28 May 2024 and he was dismissed on 21 June 2024. He was paid his wages a week in arrears. He received wages on 7 June 2024, 14 June 2024 and 21 June 2024. Wages due on 28 June 2024 were unpaid. The respondent stated the wages were not paid due to deductions made under the provisions of the claimant’s contract of employment.[2]The hearing was listed for a 90 minutes hearing. The claimant did not attend and did not respond to telephone calls made to his mobile telephone. The Employment Tribunal was provided with a copy of the claimant’s contract of employment. The claim was for unpaid wages for 44 hours worked in the final week of the claimant’s employment. The respondent resisted the claim on the basis of deductions which it was asserted were provided for within the claimant’s contract.[3]The respondent relied upon a clause in the contract which allowed them to deduct from the claimant’s wages a sum for actual loss suffered by them as a result of the employee leaving without notice (clause 4.3). The respondent had not calculated the amount of that loss and Mr. Paton had no evidence to underpin the amount which they asserted was lawfully deducted.[4]A further clause in the contract (paragraph 21.1) allowed the respondent to deduct the value of the company belongings which the claimant had allegedly failed to return to the company. No list of company belongings which it was alleged had not been return to the respondent, or the value of those items was provided to the Tribunal. There was no identified amount which could be deducted in reliance of clause 21.1.[5]The contract did not contain a clause allowing the respondent to deduct the cost of repairs to a vehicle which was returned in a damaged state. (It may be that that was part of a separate agreement, but it was not in the document produced by the respondent).[6]Given that the wages were due, but were unpaid on the basis that the respondent believed it could lawfully deduct the various sums from them, the wages for 44 hours at £11.50 in the sum of £506 (gross) was unlawfully deducted and is owed to the claimant. Judge Callan Date 1 April 2025