Ms K Fox v Chic Accessories Ltd: 6017942/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. 2. 3. 4. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages due on Tuesday 16 July 2024 for the hours worked on 7, 9 and 10 July 2024. The respondent must pay the claimant the gross sum of £258 for 21.5 hours worked. The respondent failed to provide the claimant with a statement of terms and conditions of employment as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant is awarded £912 which must be paid to her by the respondent, being the minimum amount under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The respondent did not fail to provide the claimant with an itemised pay statement as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent did not provide the claimant with the rest breaks to which she was entitled under regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 on Tuesday 9 and Wednesday 10 July 2024. The claimant has not been awarded any compensation as a result. Employment Judge Phil Allen 6 March 2025 1[3]JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 7 March 2025 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Notes Reasons for this 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.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because the claimant erroneously states that the original decision was wrong. Whilst the claimant is correct to say that she was not provided with an itemised pay statement, that does not mean that the decision being reconsidered was wrong. The Judgment clearly records that (with my emphasis added) the respondent did not fail to provide the claimant with an itemised pay statement as required by section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 8 says that a worker has the right to an itemised pay statement at or before the time at which any payment of wages or salary was made to her. As the respondent did not make any payment of wages or salary to the claimant, there was no breach of the requirement in section 8. That was the decision made and explained at the hearing. Based upon the claimant’s application, there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked (as it was correct).