Mr G Miller v T Quality Ltd: 8002638/2025
JUDGMENT
The sum paid by the respondent to the claimant in his (final) June 2025 salary payment (following upon a deduction made in respect of training pursuant to a repayment agreement) was the sum properly payable under the claimant’s contract and his claim in terms of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The claimant argued £562 had been deducted from his final pay. The deduction was in respect of training which the claimant attended. He had not found the course satisfactory. The respondent said the claimant had signed a document agreeing to repayment of the course fee if he left within 12 months and he had done so, having attended the course in question.[2]On 4 November 2025 the parties were given the opportunity to suggest dates for a final hearing. Following that process today was chosen as a suitable date and parties advised on 3 December 2025 that a final hearing would take place in Glasgow.[3]On 2 December 2025 orders were signed requiring the parties to exchange information and for the claimant to confirm certain matters, including the sum sought. The claimant had not complied with the terms of the orders and on 12 February 2026 a reminder was issued to the claimant.[4]Yesterday afternoon the claimant apologised and said a family event had resulted in him unable to attend today. He said “Even if it was possible to reschedule a date I will not request one due to the inconvenience caused”. The claimant was advised that if he was unable to attend in person he could attend remotely. He agreed to attend remotely.[5]The communication to the claimant pointed out that the issue arising in this case appeared to be a narrow one in that the claimant sought repayment of a sum deducted. The claimant appeared to have accepted in a repayment agreement that training costs would be repaid if he leaved within a year. The claimant accepted he had attended the training (but did not like it) and the respondent had incurred the costs. The claimant had left within a year and the respondent deducted the sums incurred pursuant to the agreement.[6]The claimant was asked to confirm which, if any, of the foregoing was in dispute and if so why. He was asked to set out in writing the basis for his case, given it appears that the claimant consented in writing to a deduction in respect of training given (irrespective of the quality of the training). The claimant did not dispute the foregoing nor provide any contrary evidence.[7]The claimant had been told the hearing would commence at 1030am (an extension from 10am) to allow him to attend remotely. The respondent’s agent attended in person having incurred the cost of travel from Swindon to Glasgow. The claimant did not connect at 1030am. Following attempts by the clerk to contact the claimant, he sought to connect around 1045am. The claimant was given the telephone number to call into the hearing if he was unable to connect by CVP but the claimant did not do so. All reasonable steps were taken to assist the claimant in connecting to the hearing but he did not attend remotely and by 1130am I had to determine how to proceed absent the claimant but with the respondent’s director in attendance.[8]In terms of the overriding objective under rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 I am required to deal with a case “fairly and justly” which “includes, so far as practicable—(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing,(b) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues,(c) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings,(d) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues, and(e) saving expense”.[9]I considered the overriding objective and both parties’ position in deciding how to progress. It appeared to me from the information the claimant had provided it was possible to determine the matter and that the claimant would be given the opportunity to reconsider the decision if he believed there to be an error. It was consistent with the overriding objective to do so given the issues in this case, the costs arising, and proportionality.Facts
[10]The key facts are not in dispute and were not disputed by the claimant. Repayment agreement[11]The claimant entered into a contract with the respondent on 4 April 2025 wherein he agreed the following: “Should I leave employment for whatever reason I agree that the costs of the above training (which referred to counterbalance/forklift training at an estimated cost of £630) would be repaid”. The repayment was on a sliding scale with 100% of the total costs to be repaid if he left within 12 months after completion of the course. The contract stated that the claimant agreed “any outstanding monied should be deducted from my salary”, The claimant signed the contract on 4 April 2025. Claimant attends training and respondent pays costs[12]The claimant attended a counterbalance and forklift training course that lasted 1.5 days. (A colleague had also attended but their training lasted longer).[13]The invoices issued to the respondent in respect of the training he attended totalled £450 (for one full day) and £187.50 (for a half day). A certificate of competence was issued that certified the claimant had completed a basic course on the counterbalance. Claimant leaves within 12 months and respondent seeks repayment[14]The claimant left the respondent’s employment within 12 months of completion of the training. The total sum the respondent sought from the claimant in terms of the repayment agreement would have been 100% of the sums paid by the respondent to the trainer for the course in question (which had been estimated at £630, as agreed by the claimant). The respondent decided to restrict the payment to be reclaimed to the costs of the days the claimant attended the training event and to make a further deduction in respect of the claimant’s “exemplary employment record”. The sum of £562.50 was deducted from the claimant’s final salary in June.The law
[15]Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is as follows: 13.— Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions.(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless— (a) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision or a relevant provision of the worker's contract, or (b) the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction.(2) In this section “relevant provision” , in relation to a worker's contract, means a provision of the contract comprised— (a) in one or more written terms of the contract of which the employer has given the worker a copy on an occasion prior to the employer making the deduction in question, or (b) in one or more terms of the contract (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) the existence and effect, or combined effect, of which in relation to the worker the employer has notified to the worker in writing on such an occasion.(3) Where the total amount of wages paid on any occasion by an employer to a worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion (after deductions), the amount of the deficiency shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as a deduction made by the employer from the worker's wages on that occasion.(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in so far as the deficiency is attributable to an error of any description on the part of the employer affecting the computation by him of the gross amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion.(5) For the purposes of this section a relevant provision of a worker's contract having effect by virtue of a variation of the contract does not operate to authorise the making of a deduction on account of any conduct of the worker, or any other event occurring, before the variation took effect.(6) For the purposes of this section an agreement or consent signified by a worker does not operate to authorise the making of a deduction on account of any conduct of the worker, or any other event occurring, before the agreement or consent was signified.”[16]Where the sum paid to the worker is less than that properly payable in terms of their contract, the Tribunal can make a declaration to that effect and award the sum due.Discussion
[17]The claimant’s pleaded case is that “£562 was deducted for a forklift training course which I didn’t receive. I was deducted for a 3/5 day course of which I received 6 hours over two separate days. T quality senior management agreed I didn’t receive course however stated that as they were charged by training company then I would be charged.”[18]The claimant accepts that he attended the training in respect of 2 days for which the respondent received an invoice and paid the training provider.[19]The claimant argues that “I had never sat on a forklift in my life and the industry standard of 3/5 days for a novice is what the deducted from my wages although I clearly didn’t receive this training”. He challenges the quality of the training and the nature of it, but accepts he attended the training provider for the 2 days for which payment was sought. There was no dispute that the respondent incurred the costs in respect of which repayment was sought.[20]The claimant does not dispute entering into the training repayment agreement which requires 100% to be repaid in the event of a departure within a year following completion of the training. The claimant left within that period.[21]The claimant accepts he had been told to raise any issues as to the quality of the training with the provider and that he was told if the provider agreed to reduce the cost, that reduction would be given to the claimant (and sums repaid to him). No reduction was made.[22]The legal question to be answered in this case is whether the sum paid to the claimant in his final pay was the sum properly payable under his contract (and whether the deduction made was lawful). Prior to the training event (and before the deduction) the claimant expressly consented to the deduction being made in respect of training provided to him. That training was provided to hm, albeit he challenges the quality and nature thereof.[23]From the claimant’s own case, he accepted he attended the training in question and the respondent has sought recovery of sums they incurred which the claimant had expressly agreed could be deducted from sums due to him.[24]In terms of section 13, the deduction is not unlawful there being written consent by the claimant to the deduction in question. The claim is misconceived, there being no basis upon which the claimant could challenge the deduction made from his final pay. He agreed that he would repay the sum in question if he left within a year. He attended the course and left within a year. The respondent was therefore entitled to deduct the sum, irrespective of the claimant’s criticism of the nature and extent of the training.[25]The sum paid to the claimant in his final payment was the sum properly payable in terms of his contract. The claimant had previously consented to the deduction in the agreement that had been signed prior to the course taking place. The claim is therefore dismissed. Right claimant has to seek reconsideration[26]The claimant has the right in terms of rule 68 to 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to seek a reconsideration of the judgment if the interest of justice require. In the event any of the foregoing was materially incorrect, the claimant should ensure he considers the terms of these rules and makes an appropriate and timely application.