L Lawson v DPD Group UK Ltd: 6023339/2025
JUDGMENT
UPON hearing from the claimant in person and Counsel for the respondent AND UPON the parties agreeing that the respondent’s name be corrected to that above IT IS ORDERED THAT the name of the respondent be amended to DPD Group UK Limited AND IT IS THE TRIBUAL’S JUDGMENT THAT[1]The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction from wages is dismissed, and[2]The claimant’s claim for breach of contract is dismissed.REASONS
[1]Mr Lawson claims a yearly bonus (called a MIPPS payment) for the period January 2024 to January 2025 of £6,000. DPD denies he entitled to payment because it is discretionary and it has not exercised the discretion to pay him.[2]The hearing has proceeded by video link. The claimant represented himself. The respondent was represented by Mr Liberadzki, instructed by Freeths Solicitors. There was a bundle of 80 pages. No party gave evidence because the facts are more or less agreed, and those where there is a Page 1 of 4 dispute do not require resolution. Therefore by agreement the case proceeded on submissions alone. I have taken into account the documents and those submissions. No party suggested the hearing was unfair. I am satisfied it was a fair hearing.[3]The facts are that Mr Lawson began his employment with DPD on 20 December 2021. He was involved in a workplace incident on 13 February 2025. DPD believed he might be culpable. They suspended him the same day and commenced and investigation. This led to a disciplinary hearing. On 10 March 2025, DPD concluded he was guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him summarily at a meeting that day. I am not asked to determine if the claimant were guilty of gross misconduct or not. I put it to one side.[4]In my view this claim comes down to contractual interpretation. This requires me to work out what the contract would mean to the reasonable person with knowledge of the factual matrix at the time. There is no suggestion the documents do not reflect the true contractual agreement between the parties.[5]Mr Lawson’s contract provided for pay but it refers only to payment of and entitlement to wages. It does not provide for contractual entitlement to other payments for work done. It also provides as follows. “BENEFITS “You may, during your employment, be provided with access to our employee benefits platform to select non-contractual benefits, subject to any rules applicable to the relevant benefits. These include: ● Flexible and Voluntary Benefits Programmes ● Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) ● Recognition Scheme ● Company provided benefits Further details of these benefits are available in the DPDLife section on the Company site www.dpd.co.uk The Company reserves the right to amend or withdraw at any time your entitlement to any benefits provided to you during the Appointment on reasonable notice.”[6]DPD introduced the Management Incentive Programme Policy (MIPP) to Mr Lawson on 26 June 2023. The letter saying he was joining MPPS said at the end “The payment or otherwise of any MIP will be wholly at the discretion of the Company and there is no contractual entitlement for you to receive an MIP payment, irrespective of whether bonuses have been paid to you or to others on previous occasions. The payment of MIP is subject to you being employed at the time of payment and not under any disciplinary investigation.” The letter does not change his contract and confirms the discretionary nature.[7]The MIPP policy provides: Page 2 of 4 “The Company MIP Scheme is discretionary and can be removed at any time… “If an employee has a formal sanction for conduct or is being managed for capability relating to their performance in role at any point during the MIP year or is under suspension or investigation at the time of payment, the business reserves the right to withhold any MIP [Management Incentive Programme] payment.”[8]The MIPP payment is not a contractual entitlement for the following reasons. 8.1. The policy says it is discretionary. 8.2. There is no contractual provision saying he is entitled to it. The only potentially relevant provision makes clear the discretionary and non-contractual nature. 8.3. There is a clear discretion in the policy to withhold payment in those circumstances, of which being on suspension is one. This serves only to emphasise the discretionary entitlement.[9]The law is clear that in relation to a discretionary bonus or commission scheme there is no entitlement to a commission or bonus by way of a claim for unauthorised deductions of wages until the employer has decided to pay it. In this case DPD had not decided to pay Mr Lawson a MIP payment because he was suspended. It follows the entitlement never arose. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages must fail – he was never due the payment and was not contractually entitled to it.[10]Where there is a contractual discretion and DPD has not exercised the discretion to make a MIP payment to Mr Lawson, the failure to exercise it is only a breach of contract if a discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, sometimes described as no reasonable employer in the respondent’s situation would have exercised their discretion as the respondent did.[11]The claim does not fall into that category. The MIPP payment was payable it seems on 21 February 2025 for the year ending January 2024 – it is agreed it was only payable after DPD suspended Mr Lawson even if the precise date is not. It is clear that DPD decided not to pay him a MIPP payment because he fell within the express exclusion of being suspended at the time the payment was due. Applying the express exemption is inherently reasonable and nothing in this case suggests a contrary conclusion. It is also inline with the clear nature of the payment being discretionary.[12]The MIPP is silent on what happens if a suspension ends by dismissal. However neither MIPP nor the contract provide it becomes payable. The only reasonable interpretation is that it remains discretionary. That accords with the words used in the contract, MIPP and introductory letter, as noted above. Because he was dismissed for gross misconduct, it was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable to fail to exercise the discretion in those circumstances.[13]It follows there was no breach of contract either. Page 3 of 4[14]Mr Lawson argued that because the period to which the payment related was January to January, he has already acquired an entitlement to it. However that is not what the contract provides and is not what the MIPP provides either. They can only reasonably be read the discretion remaining until the pay date in February. Approved by: