S Camattari v Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College: 6013197/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6013197/2025
Between
S CamattariClaimantBrighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form CollegeRespondent
Before
Employment Judge BurgeIn person for claimantMr T Welch (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 9 September 2025
JUDGMENT
It is the Judgment of the Tribunal that the claimant’s complaints of unauthorised deductions and interest, holiday pay, breach of contract including late notice pay, ERA 1996 s.47B detriment, and any complaint about induction pay or her service record are dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining complaint of a failure to provide an itemised pay statement continues. Approved by: Employment Judge Burge Date: 19 August 2025 Sent to the parties on: 30 August 2025 …………………………………… For the Tribunal Office: …………………………………… Case Number: 6013197/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: S Camattari Respondent: Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal by video On: 10 September 2025 Before: Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr T Welch, Counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT It is the Judgment of the Tribunal that:[1]The Claimant’s claim for an itemised pay statement under s.8, s.11(2) and s.12 Employment Rights Act 1996 fails and is dismissed.
REASONS
Conclusions
[1]The hearing was originally listed in person for 2 hours, later extended to three hours and then, following an application for reconsideration from the Claimant, extended by REJ Khalil for one day the day before the hearing. However, Respondent’s Counsel was unable to attend a full day as he had a prior commitment. Due to a tube strike the case was also converted to video the day before the hearing but upon an application from the Claimant an in person listing Case Number: 6013197/2025 2 was reinstated. The hearing lasted for three hours, with Judgment reserved.[2]The Claimant requested adjustments due to processing unfamiliar legal language. She was reassured that she could ask for clarification or repetition, she could also ask her support friend for clarification, although not while giving evidence.
The evidence
[3]The Claimant gave evidence on her own behalf. Olivia Birnie (Human Resources Manager) gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent.[4]The Tribunal was referred during the hearing to documents in two hearing bundles of 39 and 33 pages. The Claimant also provided a heavily redacted medical report and a fitness to work certificate. She also referred to some emails she had sent to the Tribunal.[5]Mr Welch provided a skeleton argument. Both the Claimant and Mr Welch gave closing oral submissions. Issues for the Tribunal to decide[6]The Claimant said that she had been paid everything that was owed to her. But she was disputing that the itemised pay statements described things properly. Her complaint was brought under s.8, s.11 and s.12 Employment Rights Act. The Claimant does not seek a monetary award. Law The relevant parts of sections 8, 11 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provide:
Law
[8]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.[11]References to employment tribunals. Case Number: 6013197/2025 3 (1)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. (2)Where—(a) a statement purporting to be a statement under section 1 or 4, or a pay statement or a standing statement of fixed deductions purporting to comply with section 8 or 9, has been given to a worker, and(b) a question arises as to the particulars which ought to have been included or referred to in the statement so as to comply with the requirements of this Part, either the employer or the worker may require the question to be referred to and determined by an employment tribunal. (3)For the purposes of this section— (b)a question as to the particulars which ought to have been included in a pay statement or standing statement of fixed deductions does not include a question solely as to the accuracy of an amount stated in any such particulars.
Law
[12]Determination of references. (1)Where, on a reference under section 11(1), an employment tribunal determines particulars as being those which ought to have been included or referred to in a statement given under section 1 or 4, the employer shall be deemed to have given to the worker a statement in which those particulars were included, or referred to, as specified in the decision of the tribunal. (2)On determining a reference under section 11(2) relating to a statement purporting to be a statement under section 1 or 4, an employment tribunal may— (a)confirm the particulars as included or referred to in the statement given by the employer, (b)amend those particulars, or (c)substitute other particulars for them, as the tribunal may determine to be appropriate; and the statement shall be deemed to have been given by the employer to the worker in accordance with the decision of the tribunal. (3)Where on a reference under section 11 an employment tribunal finds— (a)that an employer has failed to give a worker any pay statement in accordance with section 8, or (b)that a pay statement or standing statement of fixed deductions does not, in relation to a deduction, contain the particulars required to be included in that statement by that section or section 9, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect. In Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) 1992 ICR 483, HL, the House of Lords held that a payment in lieu of notice did not amount to ‘wages’ for the purposes of the provisions of the Wages Act 1986 (now contained in Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996). The definition of “wages” is set out in s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996 but it expressly applies to “this part”, which must mean Part 2 of Chapter One. Findings of Fact 7. The Tribunal finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the following facts occurred. Case Number: 6013197/2025 4 8. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an evening languages tutor on a fixed term contract from 1 October 2024 until 17 June 2025, terminable on two months’ notice. She started her paid induction on 23 September 2024. The payslip records the paid induction as from 26 September 2024 which is incorrect. 9. On 16 November 2024 the Claimant handed in her notice citing personal reasons with two months’ notice. The HR team sent a leavers letter on 18 November 2024 confirming the Claimant’s last day of service as 16 January 2025 and last working day of 14 January 2025. 10. The Claimant gave evidence to the tribunal, that is accepted, that she wanted to leave due to her personal circumstances at the time, she was stressed and finding it hard to adhere to the requirements of the Respondent including attendance in person at meetings that she felt could have been done remotely. On 21 November 2024 Ms Birnie telephoned the Claimant to let her know that they had found cover for the course that she taught. The evidence of Ms Birnie is accepted that she used words to the effect that if it was helpful for the Claimant then they would could release her from her contract early. However, there was no discussion about what that would mean for the Claimant’s pay. The Claimant agrees that she was very happy with this news and was grateful that the Respondent had found cover for her meaning that she would not need to work anymore. 11. The Claimant had access to her October and November pay slips on the system but then she was processed as a leaver which meant that she did not have access to her e-mail or the online employee portal. She was told that she could submit a different e-mail address so that she would be able to access the online portal in order to access her payslips but she told the Tribunal that she did not do this as she believed they should not have taken away her work email address. 12. Thereafter there was a dispute between the parties: the Claimant thought that she should continue to be paid to the end of her original notice period, even though the Respondent had found a replacement for her to work in her place. The Respondent was under the impression that the replacement had been welcome news for the Claimant and that the contract had come to an end by mutual termination. After much correspondence, the Respondent decided that it would pay the Claimant her notice pay to resolve the dispute, they classified it as a payment in lieu of notice ad recoded it as an “adjustment” in her gross pay section. The Claimant objected to the classification of the notice pay as a payment in lieu of notice and said to the Tribunal said that it should have been classified as gardening leave and recorded as such on the payslip. There was no documentation before the Tribunal to indicate that a period of gardening leave had been offered or was agreed.
Findings of Fact
[13]On 27 March 2025 the Respondent sent a letter and attached calculations so that the Claimant could be satisfied that she had been paid everything she should have been. Case Number: 6013197/2025 5
Conclusions
[14]Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that a worker is entitled to an itemised pay statement and that statement should contain particulars of the gross amount of wages or salary, deductions, net wages / salary and the hours where there is a variable amount of wages. The Claimant claims that the pay slips she was originally sent in March 2024 did not contain that information. The Tribunal disagrees. The payslips are clear about what the gross payments are as they are listed under “pay items”. Taking one payslip as an example, within that section are entries for holiday pay and salary which are then added to provide a total amount. The next section details “deductions from pay” with income tax deductions and pension deductions. The third section then says “your net pay is…” and gives the net figure. While the payslip does not use the word “gross” it is clear by the words used and the way it is set out.[15]The Respondent later provided more detailed pay slips. When asked by the Tribunal what details she disagreed with on the pay statements she said that instead of starting on 26 September 2024 for her induction training it should have said 23 September 2024. This was correct but is not a requirement under s.8. She also said that there were three amounts under holiday pay in November 2024 and she did not know what these three amounts related to. The Respondent explained the payments to her.[16]The Claimant also said that the payslips repeatedly indicated that her employment went to 22 November 2024 rather than the end of her original notice period, 16 January 2025. Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not say that the itemised pay statement must contain dates of employment. In any event, the Tribunal has found that the Claimant’s employment ended by mutual termination on 22 November 2024 and so it was accurate in respect of this. There was no agreement for gardening leave. The word “adjustment” could have been better described pay in lieu of notice or similar as but that is not a requirement under s.8. The payment amount was contained in the pay section and the Claimant was told what it was.[17]For all the above reasons the claimants claim fails and is dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Burge 9 September 2025 Judgment sent to the parties on: 11 September 2025 …………………………………… For the Tribunal: …………………………………… Case Number: 6013197/2025 6 Notes Judgments (apart from judgments under rule 51) and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ Case Number: 6013197/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: S Camattari Respondent: Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal by video On: 10 September 2025 Before: Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr T Welch RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT It is the Judgment of the Tribunal that 1. The Claimant’s application for reconsideration dated 1 September 2025 of the Dismissal Judgment sent to the parties on 30 August 2025 is refused under Rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 as it has no reasonable prospect of being varied or revoked. Approved by: Case Number: 6013197/2025 2 Employment Judge Burge 9 September 2025 Judgment sent to the parties on: 11 September 2025 …………………………………… For the Tribunal: …………………………………… Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ Case Number: 6013197/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: S Camattari Respondent: Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal by video On: 10 September 2025 Before: Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr T Welch
The hearing
[1]The Claimant brought her claim on 16 April 2025. She ticked the boxes in the ET1 form to indicate that she was bringing complaints of notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay, other payments. She also ticked the box indicating that she was making another type of claim which the employment tribunal could deal with.[2]On 1 June 2025 the Claimant wrote to amend her claim to[1]Unauthorised deductions from wages s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996[2]Breach of contract – failure to pay 3.5% pay increase S.8 incomplete and unclear payslips Breach of contract – omission of hours worked[5]Pay records falsification section 8 and 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. Case Number: 6013197/2025 2 3. On 11 June 2025 the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal that she wished “to clarify that my primary intention is to ensure the claim reflects only matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, namely, unlawful deductions from wages (s.13), breach of contract post-termination, failure to provide accurate itemised payslips (s.8), and enforcement under s.11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.” 4. On 2 July 2025 the Tribunal asked for the Respondent’s comments on the Claimant’s application to amend her claim. The Respondent responded on 4 July 2025: “Dealing with the Claimant’s application to amend comment we comment as follows: 1. Section 13 ERA 1996: unlawful deduction from wages. There has been no unauthorised deduction from wages. The Claimant has received her full notice and contractual entitlement. 2. Contract of employment: in relation to the 3.5% increase pay, as often happens in the sector, pay increases are backdated once an agreement is reached with the trade unions. This was part of the problem with the Claimant’s outstanding payments insofar as the Claimant had already left the Respondent’s employment yet was entitled to the backdated pay increase. This was not in breach of general employment or principles governing contractual variation. 3. Section 8 ERA 1996. The Respondents provides itemised payslips, the correct hourly rate and hours worked as it relates to payments made at the time. There may be variations to that, in particular, if there is a backdated pay increase, but no such incomplete payslip has been produced as the Claimant alleges. 4. Contract of employment section 6: the Claimant’s payslips contains the hours she worked. 5. Pay records: falsification and misreporting. The Respondent uses real time information provided to HMRC, like most employers. Each month is backdated and accordingly any errors identified in a previous month or months would be rectified by the next month’s RTI.” 5. On 4 August 2025 Employment Judge Evans wrote summarising the Claimant’s application, asked her to write to the Tribunal confirming whether the summary was correct, if not what, and which of her original complaints she withdraws. He noted the small value of the claim, proportionality and the Claimant’s excessive correspondence with the Tribunal.[6]The Claimant responded on 12 August 2025: “1. Confirmation of scope: I limit my claim to enforcement of itemised pay statements under the Employment Rights Act 1996 ss.11(2) and 12(2) only, as below. No other points from my amended particulars are pursued. Case Number: 6013197/2025 3 2. Remedies sought under ss.11(2) and 12(2). Please determine the particulars that ought to have appeared and order amended payslips to show: a) October 2024: total hours worked = 6.0; show that the additional 5.5 hours paid in October relate to September 2024 work. b) November 2024: total hours worked = 3.5. c) Pay in lieu of notice: identify payments as “Pay in lieu of notice covering 20 Nov 2024 to 16 Jan 2025.” d) February and March 2025 payslips: reissue to label those sums as the above PILON and show those notice-period dates, rather than “adjustments.” e) Rate display: Where an hourly rate is shown, correct it to £28.96 from 1 Sep 2024. For February/March 2025, describe any differential as “backpay for rate increase from £27.98 to £28.96” and state the period covered (Sep–Nov 2024). f) Disputed entry: the line ‘Teaching claim 1h £5.88’ is incorrect. I performed no such work and there is no supporting record. Please remove it on reissue. g) Gross pay label: where the payslip shows the total before deductions, label it ‘Gross pay’. 3. Withdrawals: I withdraw all other complaints, namely: unauthorised deductions and interest, holiday pay, breach of contract including late notice pay, ERA 1996 s.47B detriment, and any complaint about induction pay or my service record. I am content for determination on the papers. If a hearing is needed, please list the shortest possible hearing. Attached are original payslips, an extract of my contract (pay clause), and an HR email extract confirming a 3.5% increase.”[7]On 30 August 2025 the Tribunal issued the dismissal Judgment and asked that the Respondent respond to the remaining complaint in relation to itemised pay statements.[8]On 1 September 2025 the Claimant made an application for reconsideration of the dismissal Judgment and asked for the following to be restored “i. Unauthorised deductions contrary to ERA 1996 s13 with complaint under s23 in respect of unpaid wages for the notice period 22/11/24 to 16/01/25 and any consequential shortfall ii. Breach of contract limited to notice pay.”[9]The grounds that the Claimant relied on were the late disclosure of payslips, fairness and disability and that the payslips were not reliable as they had been printed and edited by Ms Birnie. Case Number: 6013197/2025 4[10]Due to the proximity of the final hearing, the Respondent was asked to provide comments on the Claimant’s application by the day before the final hearing and the issue would be dealt with first.[11]Mr Welch on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the Claimant’s withdrawal email was clear, unequivocal and unambiguous notification that the Claimant was withdrawing her claims. The Tribunal was under no obligation to enquire about her reasons for withdrawing her claims, which, save in exceptional cases (which this is not) would be “unnecessary and inappropriate” (Drysdale v Department of Transport [2014] IRLR 892 Simler LJ ¶61). Further, the Claimant had been in possession of her pay statements (for all relevant periods) before issuing these proceedings and on her own case she does not allege unnotified deductions.
Law
[12]The Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 provide: 50. End of claim Where a party advancing a claim informs the Tribunal, either in writing or in the course of a hearing, that their claim, or part of it, is withdrawn, the claim, or part, comes to an end, subject to any application that the party responding or replying to the claim may make for a costs order, preparation time order or wasted costs order. 51. Dismissal following withdrawal Where a claim, or part of it, has been withdrawn under rule 50 (end of claim), the Tribunal must issue a judgment dismissing it (which means that the party advancing it may not commence a further claim against the party responding or replying to it raising the same, or substantially the same, complaint) unless—(a) the party advancing the claim has expressed at the time of withdrawal a wish to reserve the right to bring such a further claim and the Tribunal is satisfied that there would be legitimate reason for doing so, or(b) the Tribunal believes that to issue such a judgment would not be in the interests of justice.
Findings of Fact
[13]In Campbell v OCS Group UK Ltd and anor 2017 ICR D19, EAT, an unrepresented claimant emailed the employment tribunal withdrawing her claim on grounds of ill health. The tribunal dismissed the claim in her absence but the claimant then sought to retract her withdrawal. The EAT confirmed that where Case Number: 6013197/2025 5 a claim is withdrawn and comes to an end under (what is now) rule 50, the tribunal must issue a dismissal judgment unless either of the exceptions in (what is now) Rule 51 applies.[14]Rules 68 – 70 Employment Tribunal rules 2024 state: 68. Principles(1) The Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.(2) A judgment under reconsideration may be confirmed, varied or revoked.(3) If the judgment under reconsideration is revoked the Tribunal may take the decision again. In doing so, the Tribunal is not required to come to the same conclusion. 69. Application for reconsideration Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration must be made in writing setting out why reconsideration is necessary and must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the later of— (a) the date on which the written record of the judgment sought to be reconsidered was sent to the parties, or (b) the date that the written reasons were sent, if these were sent separately. 70. Process for reconsideration (1) The Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69 (application for reconsideration). (2) If the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application must be refused and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal. (3) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the Tribunal must send a notice to the parties specifying the period by which any written representations in respect of the application must be received by the Tribunal, and seeking the views of the parties on whether the application can be determined without a hearing. The Case Number: 6013197/2025 6 notice may also set out the Tribunal’s provisional views on the application.(4) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the judgment must be reconsidered at a hearing unless the Tribunal considers, having regard to any written representations provided under paragraph (3), that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.(5) If the Tribunal determines the application without a hearing the parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations in respect of the application.
Conclusions
[15]If neither of the exceptions in Rule 51 apply, the effect of a claim being dismissed on withdrawal is that there is an absolute bar to the resurrection of the withdrawn claim in the Employment Tribunal. In this case, the withdrawal was unequivocally made. The Claimant’s email was explicit and there was no reservation of a right to bring such a further claim and there was no indication that to issue such a judgment would not be in the interests of justice. The Tribunal was not required to provide the Claimant with an opportunity to be heard before dismissing the claim under Rule 51. The Tribunal had to dismiss the claim under Rule 51 and it did so.[16]Rule 68 provides that the Tribunal may reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. The Claimant says that she has a medical condition and was suffering from work related stress. She provided a fitness for work certificate from her GP and provided a (heavily redacted) medical report but neither the report/certificate nor the Claimant explained why the conditions might mean that she had unintentionally withdrawn her claim or why her email could not be relied on. Further, the Claimant said that she was paid her wages and she was paid in lieu of notice so in any event it would not be in the interests of justice to restore two claims that would be bound to fail.[17]I conclude that in accordance with Rule 70(2), there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked and so the Claimant’s application to reconsider the dismissal Judgment is refused. Approved by: Employment Judge Burge 24 September 2025 Case Number: 6013197/2025 7 Notes All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ Case Number: 6013197/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: S Camattari Respondent: Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal by video On: 10 September 2025 Before: Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr T Welch RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT Corrected under Rule 67 It is the Judgment of the Tribunal that 1. The Claimant’s application for reconsideration dated 1 September 2025 of the Dismissal Judgment sent to the parties on 30 August 2025 is refused under Rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 as it has no reasonable prospect of being varied or revoked. Approved by: Case Number: 6013197/2025 2 Employment Judge Burge 9 September 2025 Corrected under Rule 67 10 September 2025 Judgment sent to the parties on: 11 September 202522 October 2025 …………………………………… For the Tribunal: …………………………………… Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ Case Number: 6013197/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: S Camattari Respondent: Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal by video On: 10 September 2025 Before: Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr T Welch, Counsel[1]The hearing was originally listed in person for 2 hours, later extended to three hours and then, following an application for reconsideration from the Claimant, extended by REJ Khalil for one day the day before the hearing. However, Respondent’s Counsel was unable to attend a full day as he had a prior Case Number: 6013197/2025 2 commitment. Due to a tube strike the case was also converted to video the day before the hearing but upon an application from the Claimant an in person listing was reinstated. The hearing lasted for three hours, with Judgment reserved.[2]The Claimant requested adjustments due to processing unfamiliar legal language. She was reassured that she could ask for clarification or repetition, she could also ask her support friend for clarification, although not while giving evidence.
The evidence
[3]The Claimant gave evidence on her own behalf. Olivia Birnie (Human Resources Manager) gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent.[4]The Tribunal was referred during the hearing to documents in two hearing bundles of 39 and 33 pages. The Claimant also provided a heavily redacted medical report and a fitness to work certificate. She also referred to some emails she had sent to the Tribunal.[5]Mr Welch provided a skeleton argument. Both the Claimant and Mr Welch gave closing oral submissions. Issues for the Tribunal to decide[6]The Claimant said that she had been paid everything that was owed to her. But she was disputing that the itemised pay statements described things properly. Her complaint was brought under s.8, s.11 and s.12 Employment Rights Act. The Claimant does not seek a monetary award. Law The relevant parts of sections 8, 11 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provide:[8]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. Case Number: 6013197/2025 3[11]References to employment tribunals. (1)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. (2)Where—(a) a statement purporting to be a statement under section 1 or 4, or a pay statement or a standing statement of fixed deductions purporting to comply with section 8 or 9, has been given to a worker, and(b) a question arises as to the particulars which ought to have been included or referred to in the statement so as to comply with the requirements of this Part, either the employer or the worker may require the question to be referred to and determined by an employment tribunal. (3)For the purposes of this section— (b)a question as to the particulars which ought to have been included in a pay statement or standing statement of fixed deductions does not include a question solely as to the accuracy of an amount stated in any such particulars.[12]Determination of references. (1)Where, on a reference under section 11(1), an employment tribunal determines particulars as being those which ought to have been included or referred to in a statement given under section 1 or 4, the employer shall be deemed to have given to the worker a statement in which those particulars were included, or referred to, as specified in the decision of the tribunal. (2)On determining a reference under section 11(2) relating to a statement purporting to be a statement under section 1 or 4, an employment tribunal may— (a)confirm the particulars as included or referred to in the statement given by the employer, (b)amend those particulars, or (c)substitute other particulars for them, as the tribunal may determine to be appropriate; and the statement shall be deemed to have been given by the employer to the worker in accordance with the decision of the tribunal. (3)Where on a reference under section 11 an employment tribunal finds— (a)that an employer has failed to give a worker any pay statement in accordance with section 8, or (b)that a pay statement or standing statement of fixed deductions does not, in relation to a deduction, contain the particulars required to be included in that statement by that section or section 9, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect. In Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) 1992 ICR 483, HL, the House of Lords held that a payment in lieu of notice did not amount to ‘wages’ for the purposes of the provisions of the Wages Act 1986 (now contained in Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996). The definition of “wages” is set out in s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996 but it expressly applies to “this part”, which must mean Part 2 of Chapter One. Findings of Fact 7. The Tribunal finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the following facts occurred. Case Number: 6013197/2025 4 8. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an evening languages tutor on a fixed term contract from 1 October 2024 until 17 June 2025, terminable on two months’ notice. She started her paid induction on 23 September 2024. The payslip records the paid induction as from 26 September 2024 which is incorrect. 9. On 16 November 2024 the Claimant handed in her notice citing personal reasons with two months’ notice. The HR team sent a leavers letter on 18 November 2024 confirming the Claimant’s last day of service as 16 January 2025 and last working day of 14 January 2025. 10. The Claimant gave evidence to the tribunal, that is accepted, that she wanted to leave due to her personal circumstances at the time, she was stressed and finding it hard to adhere to the requirements of the Respondent including attendance in person at meetings that she felt could have been done remotely. On 21 November 2024 Ms Birnie telephoned the Claimant to let her know that they had found cover for the course that she taught. The evidence of Ms Birnie is accepted that she used words to the effect that if it was helpful for the Claimant then they would could release her from her contract early. However, there was no discussion about what that would mean for the Claimant’s pay. The Claimant agrees that she was very happy with this news and was grateful that the Respondent had found cover for her meaning that she would not need to work anymore. 11. The Claimant had access to her October and November pay slips on the system but then she was processed as a leaver which meant that she did not have access to her e-mail or the online employee portal. She was told that she could submit a different e-mail address so that she would be able to access the online portal in order to access her payslips but she told the Tribunal that she did not do this as she believed they should not have taken away her work email address. 12. Thereafter there was a dispute between the parties: the Claimant thought that she should continue to be paid to the end of her original notice period, even though the Respondent had found a replacement for her to work in her place. The Respondent was under the impression that the replacement had been welcome news for the Claimant and that the contract had come to an end by mutual termination. After much correspondence, the Respondent decided that it would pay the Claimant her notice pay to resolve the dispute, they classified it as a payment in lieu of notice ad recoded it as an “adjustment” in her gross pay section. The Claimant objected to the classification of the notice pay as a payment in lieu of notice and said to the Tribunal said that it should have been classified as gardening leave and recorded as such on the payslip. There was no documentation before the Tribunal to indicate that a period of gardening leave had been offered or was agreed. Case Number: 6013197/2025 5[13]On 27 March 2025 the Respondent sent a letter and attached calculations so that the Claimant could be satisfied that she had been paid everything she should have been.
Conclusions
[14]Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that a worker is entitled to an itemised pay statement and that statement should contain particulars of the gross amount of wages or salary, deductions, net wages / salary and the hours where there is a variable amount of wages. The Claimant claims that the pay slips she was originally sent in March 2024 did not contain that information. The Tribunal disagrees. The payslips are clear about what the gross payments are as they are listed under “pay items”. Taking one payslip as an example, within that section are entries for holiday pay and salary which are then added to provide a total amount. The next section details “deductions from pay” with income tax deductions and pension deductions. The third section then says “your net pay is…” and gives the net figure. While the payslip does not use the word “gross” it is clear by the words used and the way it is set out.
Conclusions
[15]The Respondent later provided more detailed pay slips. When asked by the Tribunal what details she disagreed with on the pay statements she said that instead of starting on 26 September 2024 for her induction training it should have said 23 September 2024. This was correct but is not a requirement under s.8. She also said that there were three amounts under holiday pay in November 2024 and she did not know what these three amounts related to. The Respondent explained the payments to her.[16]The Claimant also said that the payslips repeatedly indicated that her employment went to 22 November 2024 rather than the end of her original notice period, 16 January 2025. Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not say that the itemised pay statement must contain dates of employment. In any event, the Tribunal has found that the Claimant’s employment ended by mutual termination on 22 November 2024 and so it was accurate in respect of this. There was no agreement for gardening leave. The word “adjustment” could have been better described pay in lieu of notice or similar as but that is not a requirement under s.8. The payment amount was contained in the pay section and the Claimant was told what it was.[17]For all the above reasons the claimants claim fails and is dismissed. Approved by: