Mr G Dyer v Renfrew Transport Services Ltd: 8001630/2024
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that(1) the claimant’s claim under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well founded; and(2) the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY POUNDS (£720).REASONS
[1]The claimant complains that on 22 September 2024, the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from his wages of £720, without his knowledge or agreement.[2]The respondent resisted the claim asserting misconduct by the claimant and that he was told a deduction would be made to cover the costs. The respondent referred to the company handbook. A copy of the handbook was not provided nor were the details of the clauses relied on.[3]The claimant attended the hearing. There was no attendance by or for the respondent. The clerk telephoned the number provided in the response but it was unattainable.[4]The claimant advised that the respondent had announced on 9 December 2024 that it was ceasing to trade with immediate effect. Employees were told that the company could not afford to pay outstanding wages or redundancy payment.[5]Other than presenting the response, the respondent has not communicated with the Tribunal. The Tribunal had no knowledge that the respondent had ceased trading and would not be attending the hearing.[6]I heard evidence from the claimant. While his evidence was unchallenged, I considered that he gave his evidence candidly and honestly. Findings in fact[7]The claimant was employed by the respondent as a van driver from 17 March 2017.[8]On 22 September 2024, the claimant received his payslip which showed a deduction of £720 from his wages for “insubordination”. The claimant had no prior knowledge of this deduction and had not consented to it.[9]The claimant raised a grievance on 27 September 2024 complaining about the deduction. The claimant stated that he had not authorised or agreed to the deduction. There was no explanation for the deduction, how it was quantified, or reference to agreement justify the respondent making a deduction from his wages. The respondent replied saying that the grievance and the claimant’s actions would be discussed on his return to work from sick leave. The claimant’s grievance remains outstanding.[10]The claimant is aware of the company handbook. He did not know if it forms part of his contract of employment. He said that drivers are responsible for payment of speeding fines and parking tickets incurred while driving the vans. If the respondent deducts speeding fines and parking tickets from wages, the respondent advises the employee in advance of the reason for, and the amount that will be deducted.Deliberations
[11]I referred to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. There was no dispute that the deduction had been made. The respondent suggested in the response that the company handbook gave authorisation to make the deduction. This was not produced and the terms could not be scrutinised.[12]The claimant did not have a copy of the company handbook although he was aware of it. He explained that drivers were held liable for speeding fines and parking tickets while driving vans. The respondent would advise the driver of the details of the offence and the amount before making the deduction. The claimant said that on this occasion he was unaware of the reason for the deduction, how the amount was calculated, and he received no advance notification. The claimant was unaware of any clause authorising deductions for insubordination or costs.[13]On the evidence before me I was not satisfied that the respondent was authorised by a relevant provision of the claimant’s contract to make the deduction of £720.[14]The respondent did not advise the claimant of the contractual provision under which it made the deduction, nor did the respondent notify the claimant in writing before making the deduction. The claimant did not give written consent to the deduction.[15]I these circumstances I concluded that the deduction was unlawful, the claim was well founded, and the respondent should be ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £720. S MacLean