Mr J Griffin v Amazon UK Services Ltd: 6006397/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim of a failure to give the claimant itemised pay statements was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claim of pursuant to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is therefore dismissed.REASONS
[1]This claim was brought by the claimant against Amazon UK Services Limited, and it relates to the failure to provide itemised payslips. This was a final hearing.[2]The claimant clarified at the outset of the hearing that he was claiming that he had not been given payslips from start of his employment, which was 14 November 2023, or possibly 21 November 2023, through to 13 January 2024. In addition, he says that two other payslips for the weeks 19 and 26 January 2024 were not provided to him. He brings his complaint pursuant to Section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He relies upon section 8 which requires an employer to give an worker at or before the time upon which any pay is paid to him, a written itemised pay statement. Case No. 6006397/2025 2 He says that the failure to provide him with payslips has led to serious inconvenience and financial loss.[3]The respondent denied the claim and contended that the claim was in any event presented approximately nine months outside the prescribed time limits.[4]The claimant has been provided with copies of his written pay slips since these proceedings have been issued.[5]The issues that I needed to decide were whether the claim had been brought within the time limits prescribed within section 11(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 being three months from when the claimant’s employment ceased. If not, whether it was brought within such further period as is reasonable where the Tribunal is satisfied it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be brought in time. Secondly, whether the respondent failed to comply with its obligations under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Evidence and Submissions[6]I heard from the claimant and Mr Dillon Neil who is a Human Resources Assistant at the respondent. I had access to an agreed bundle of documents.Findings of Fact
[7]The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on a fixed term basis from 21 November 2023. His employment was due to terminate on 13 January 2024. He was employed as a warehouse operative. He was paid weekly.[8]During his employment his payslips were provided to him electronically via the respondent’s A-Z app (internal communication tool). The claimant accepted he had access to the A-Z app during his employment. Although the claimant cannot recall whether he looked at his payslips on this app at the time, he accepted that he had been trained how to do so. Following the issue of proceedings, the claimant has been provided with paper copies of all pay slips.[9]When an employee leaves, they can register for another app known as an ADP app before their termination date which allows them to continue to access their employee information, including payslips for a period afterwards. The process of registration is complicated. The claimant did not register for this. The respondent did not provide any evidence in the form of emails or otherwise that he had been invited to do so or provided with information to assist him in the registration process. Mr Neil’s evidence was about the process rather than having any direct evidence of what happened in the claimant’s case. The claimant says he did not recall ever having been invited to register.[10]After the claimant left, he emailed the respondent on four occasions asking for copies of his payslips. Those emails were not replied to. On 11 March 2024 he wrote to the respondent by e-mail threatening further action within fourteen days. He accepted that at that date he knew that he could take legal action in the form of proceedings before the Employment Tribunal. Case No. 6006397/2025 3The Law
[11]Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states: Itemised pay statement.(1) A worker has the right to be given by his employer, at or before the time at which any payment of wages or salary is made to him, a written itemised pay statement.(2) The statement shall contain particulars of— (a)the gross amount of the wages or salary, (b)the amounts of any variable, and (subject to section 9) any fixed, deductions from that gross amount and the purposes for which they are made, (c)the net amount of wages or salary payable, (d)where different parts of the net amount are paid in different ways, the amount and method of payment of each part-payment; and (e)where the amount of wages or salary varies by reference to time worked, the total number of hours worked in respect of the variable amount of wages or salary either as— (i)a single aggregate figure, or (ii)separate figures for different types of work or different rates of pay.[12]Section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states (where relevant to this claim): (3) Where an employer does not give a worker a statement as required by section 1, 4 or 8 (either because the employer gives the worker no statement or because the statement the employer gives does not comply with what is required), the worker may require a reference to be made to an employment tribunal to determine what particulars ought to have been included or referred to in a statement so as to comply with the requirements of the section concerned. (4) …. (5) …. (6) An employment tribunal shall not consider a reference under this section in a case where the employment to which the reference relates has ceased unless an application requiring the reference to be made was made— (a)before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which the employment ceased, or (b)within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the application to be made before the end of that period of three months. (7) ….. Case No. 6006397/2025 4 (8) Section 207B (extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) also applies for the purposes of subsection (4)(a).[13]Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372, CA, the Court of Appeal conducted a general review of the authorities and concluded that ‘reasonably practicable’ does not mean reasonable, which would be too favourable to employees, and does not mean physically possible, which would be too favourable to employers, but means something like ‘reasonably feasible’. Lady Smith in Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07 explained it in the following words: ‘The relevant test is not simply a matter of looking at what was possible but to ask whether, on the facts of the case as found, it was reasonable to expect that which was possible to have been done’.[14]The first thing I must consider is whether this claim has been brought in time. A claim must be brought (by contacting ACAS for the purpose of early conciliation) within three months from the date of the employee’s employment ending.[15]The respondent says that the termination date was 13 January 2024, and the claim was not brought until ACAS were contacted a year later on 14 January 2025.[16]The claimant says that an email was sent to him on 6 January 2025 in response to a further request for his payslips. In that email, a copy of which was provided to us, the claimant was advised that his account had been reviewed and that he was still an active employee. That email was not personalised and appears to be a standard response from the Amazon Jobs Team. In his claim, the claimant relies upon this as evidence that his employment had not therefore terminated and continued to 14 January 2025. As such he says his claim is not out of time.[17]However, the oral evidence given by the claimant to this tribunal, which was supported by documentation, was that he understood his employment ended on 11 or 13 January 2024. He had notified the respondent that he was leaving his employment effective from 11 January 2024. This contract was a short fixed-term contract which appears to have been for the Christmas season. The claimant’s P45 when it was produced confirmed that his employment ended on 13 January 2024. The contract stated that it would terminate on 13 January 2024. Although the claimant says he did not receive that contract the same information appears in the offer email which the claimant accepts he did receive. The claimant found new work in January 2024 by becoming self-employed and also undertaking childcare.[18]The email a year later dated 6 January 2025 was an error made by the respondent’s systems. It was no more than that and it does not change the position in relation to the claimant’s effective date of termination. Case No. 6006397/2025 5[19]Under section 11(4) of the Employment Rights Act the claimant has to contact ACAS within three months from his effective date of termination, which would have been by 12 April 2024. He first contacted ACAS for the purposes of early conciliation on 14 January 2025 and the claim was eventually presented on 25 February 2025. The claimant’s claim is some nine months out of time. As it was not presented in time, I must consider whether it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented the claim in that period. Mr Ludlow reminded me of the authorities on that point and one of those authorities confirms that I must consider whether it was “reasonably feasible” for the claimant to do that at that time.[20]I am grateful to the claimant for his honest responses to all of the questions which have been asked and in one of those responses he accepted that he was aware he could take some further action, and by that he means legal action, from about 11 March 2024 which is when he wrote the e-mail threatening “further action within fourteen days”. There was no clear explanation provided by Mr Griffin as to why having not had a response he did not bring a claim to the Tribunal at that time. His only thought was that he was giving the respondent time to try and get their house in order and get it sorted out.[21]I find that as of 11 March 2024, it was reasonably practicable, being reasonably feasible, for the claimant to have contacted ACAS to commence early conciliation and to thereafter have presented a claim to the Tribunal. He was aware that the respondent was not responding to his emails. He knew that he could bring a claim to the Tribunal. He accepted that he had access to the internet to research and I find that it would have been reasonably feasible for him to have checked the time limits. Although the claimant is a litigant in person, it is apparent to me that he was capable of bringing these proceedings in March 2024. He has shown his ability to conducting these proceedings including referring to legal authorities and understanding legal principles.[22]I find that the claim was not presented in time when it was reasonably practicable to do so. As such the claim is struck out as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Was there a failure to provide payslips?[23]Although not necessary in view of my findings that the claim is struck out. I have gone on to consider the merits of this claim and what would have been my view if the claim had been presented in time. I find that both witnesses gave evidence to the very best of their recollections. Mr Neil’s evidence however related to processes that exist and should be followed as opposed to what did happen in Mr Griffin’s case. In part this is because the claim was presented so late that much of the evidence that the respondent may have been able to rely upon has not been retained.[24]There was much information that the claimant himself could not remember, and he accepted that was the case. The burden is on the claimant to prove facts though he need only do so on the balance of probabilities.[25]I have found that the respondent’s A-Z app allows employees to access payslips during their employment. Mr Griffin accepted that he had some initial training on this app. He also accepted that he had access to the A-Z app which allowed him to look at the shifts he was to work but crucially also allowed him to access payslips. He Case No. 6006397/2025 6 may have looked at them or not. I do not know because he cannot remember, but the opportunity was there for him, and it was his choice as to whether he did. At no time during his employment did he complain that he could not see them, or that he could not access them or in fact that he needed paper copies of them. During that time there must have been, on my calculations, between seven and eight payslips issued at least. I therefore find that Mr Griffin was given access to the A-Z app where he could access his payslips, that the payslips were available on that app for him to view and that was sufficient for the purposes of Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act. Therefore, had the claim been in time I would have found that there was no failure to provide payslips in the period 14 November 2023 to 13 January 2024.[26]Mr Griffin raised at this hearing that he has dyslexia and that viewing documents through an app was not ideal. He did not raise this as a disability-related compliant as part of his claim. Neither did he present any evidence that this was raised with his employer as a reason for him needing paper copies during his employment.[27]The last two payslips, which form part of the claim are those dated 19 and 26 January 2024. I would have taken a different view in respect of these, had the claim been in time. It was clear from the date the claimant’s employment ended that he did not have these payslips or access to them. He says he cannot recall being given details as to how to register. There was no evidence produced by the respondent that the claimant had been given access to register for the APD app which could have allowed him to look at his last two payslips. The respondent did not provide even a sample e-mail or something which would have assisted me in understanding how a departing employee might be notified or advised as to what was necessary and what would happen if they did not register. The evidence which I have been provided with relied upon Mr Neil’s evidence and documents as to what should happen as opposed to what did happen.[28]Again, I accept that that might have been impacted in part by the claimant’s bringing his claim late, but by the date of issue of the payslips of 19 and 26 January 2024 which included his pay for his final week of work and his holiday pay, the claimant had left employment. By that stage the claimant has been shut out of the A-Z app. From the evidence provided by Mr Neil being the step-by-step guides to access the APD App, even if the claimant had been provided with details of how to register, it is not a straightforward process, and the onus was upon him. There are a number of steps to follow, and the process of registration is not easy. Those step-by-step guides may have been sent to him, we do not know, there is no evidence, but he would have to register for the APD app before he left to be able to then access it afterwards. Once he had left there was no way he could access the payslips if he had failed to do so. That is not a satisfactory position for an employee to be left in.[29]In addition, when the claimant asked for paper copies of the payslips he could not access, he was not provided with them. He sent four emails in the few weeks after this employment ended, making the request, none of which were responded to. Mr Neil has explained that he had a period of ill health which prevented him from responding to the requests, but by Section 8 it is incumbent upon the respondent to give the employee a written itemised pay statement before or at the time any wages or salary is paid. Had the claimant’s complaint been in time, in relation to those post-employment payslips I would not have found that the respondent had failed to provide Case No. 6006397/2025 7 those two payslips in accordance with their obligation under Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[30]I apologise for the delay in providing these written reasons which was as a result of annual leave and other judicial work that also needed to be completed. Approved by