Mr N Williamson v PTS Services Group Ltd: 8002801/2025
JUDGMENT
1, The respondent is in breach of contract with the claimant in not paying bonus due to him, and the claimant is awarded the sum of SIX THOUSAND POUNDS (£6,000) as the sum due to him under the contract.[2]The respondent shall be at liberty to deduct from the above sum prior to making payment to the claimant such amounts of Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions (if any) as it may be required by law to deduct from a payment of earnings of that amount made to the claimant, and if it does so, duly remits such sums so deducted to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and provides to the claimant written evidence of the fact and amount of such deductions and of the sums deducted having been remitted to HMRC, and payment of the balance to the claimant shall satisfy the requirements of this judgment. E.T. Z4 (WR)REASONS
[1]This was a Final Hearing held in person at the Aberdeen Tribunal. The claim made is for breach of contract. The respondent disputes the claim and argues that it was not in breach of contract. The focus of the dispute was on whether or not the claimant had been provided with a written contract of employment which provided for a bonus being discretionary following being presented by hard copy and email with an offer letter for employment which had bonus provisions which were not discretionary.[2]The claimant is a party litigant, and the respondent was represented by its director Mr Notman. Neither had any experience of Tribunal litigation. At the commencement of the hearing I explained how it would be conducted, that all evidence a party wished to rely on required to be provided at this hearing and only very exceptionally was new evidence permitted thereafter. I stated that documents would only be considered when referred to in oral evidence. I explained about evidence in chief to cover both liability and remedy, and as to cross examination covering any matter that the witness had stated which was considered to be not correct as a matter of fact, or any matter that the witness could be expected to know about which either would assist the other party or was to form part of its own evidence. I explained that if a point was not cross examined I was liable to accept the evidence the witness had given as not being controversial. I referred to Tribunal questions and to re-examination on matters arising from cross examination or Tribunal questions only.[3]I then explained that there was an opportunity not a requirement to make a submission.Evidence
[4]The parties had each prepared their own documents that they wished to rely on in accordance with case management orders issued. Evidence was heard from the claimant, and for the respondent from Mr Steve Ord, the Managing Director.[5]I asked a number of questions of the claimant and Mr Ord to elicit facts under Rule 41.Issues
[6]The issues in the case are:(i) Was the respondent in breach of contract in not paying bonus to the claimant?(ii) If the answer to the foregoing issue is yes, what sum should be awarded to the claimant?Facts
[7]The following facts, material to the issues above, I found to have been established:[8]The claimant is Mr Neil Williamson.[9]The respondent is PTS Services Group Ltd. It has places of business in Ellon and Whitecairns. It has about 20 employees. Mr Steve Ord is its Managing Director. It provides hydraulics and electrical services.[10]The claimant was employed by a business located close to the respondent’s premises. He had undertaken some business with them from time to time.[11]In or around September 2023 the respondent wished to employ a Business Development Manager, and approached the claimant.[12]Mr Ord met the claimant at the respondent’s premises on 6 October 2023. They discussed the possibility of the claimant joining the respondent. Mr Ord offered a salary of £50,000 per annum. The claimant explained that his current salary was £58,000 per annum. Mr Ord referred to a bonus structure that the respondent offered which was set out on a letter of offer document that he handed to the claimant. Mr Ord said that if the claimant took in the work there was a good amount of money to be made from that bonus structure.[13]The bonus structure set out on the said letter of offer had the heading “Monthly bonus scheme” and three headings for “monthly revenue, profit @ 30% and Bonus @ 15% of Profit”. Below each heading were figures. There was no bonus payable if the monthly revenue did not exceed £10,000. The letter of offer did not state that the bonus was discretionary. Below the bonus details it was stated “I will forward the full terms and conditions of the contract under separate cover if you accept the position.”[14]Later that same day Mr Ord emailed the claimant the said offer letter, and shortly afterwards and again that day Mr Williamson emailed in reply accepting the offer.[15]The claimant gave notice to his current employer, who waived the requirement for notice, and the claimant commenced employment with the respondent on 16 October 2023.[16]The claimant had a short meeting with Mr Ord on his first day of employment and was introduced to other members of staff.[17]On 18 October 2023 a member of staff of the respondent, either Tracy or Atlanta, handed the claimant three documents to complete. They were an employee details form, a payroll information form and an employee checklist. The claimant completed and signed them that day, adding the date, and returned them.[18]The respondent paid bonus to the claimant in November 2023 of £150, December 2023 of £300, April 2024 of £2,500, September 2024 of £1,500 and December 2024 of £1,000. When such bonus was paid it was shown on the payslip relative to the payment stating only “bonus” and the amount.[19]The claimant asked Mr Ord as to what bonus was due on a number of occasions, including in April 2025. Mr Ord replied each time to the effect that he would look into it. Mr Ord did not later revert to the claimant.[20]On 29 August 2025 the claimant was dismissed by Mr Gary Notman, the Operations Director of the respondent, with the dismissal with effect from that date. It was confirmed by letter of that date. It stated that business development activity had not met the expected levels required for the position. A payment in lieu of notice and other sums was made. There was within that payment, and had been previously, no payment of bonus for any period in 2025.[21]The claimant emailed Mr Ord after the dismissal asking him questions, one of which was as to bonus. Mr Ord sent a reply on 17 September 2025 stating “I will take a look @ the bonus. I will get Tracy to send on your payslips. “ Mr Notman replied to the claimant on 26 September 2025 answering his questions. On bonus he stated that “There was no contractual entitlement to a bonus payment, this was at the directors [sic] discretion.”[22]The work that the claimant brought in for the respondent included a contract for a company named Helix with revenue of about £350,000, for a company named Sulzer with revenue of about £160,000, two contracts for a company named Fugro with revenues of about £300,000 and £150,000 respectively, and a series of smaller contracts for companies named Control Cutter, Norwegian Offshore Rental, West Fraser, and Decom Engineering with revenues totalling about £160,000.[23]The sum due to the claimant under the bonus scheme from the said letter dated 6 October 2023 for the period from 1 January 2023 to 29 August 2023 is not less than £6,000.[24]The claimant commenced Early Conciliation on 25 September 2025. The Early Conciliation Certificate was issued on 6 November 2025. The Claim Form was presented on 17 November 2025. Submissions[25]The parties made brief submissions, with the claimant arguing that he had not been given the contract of employment the respondent founded on. The respondent argued that that contract had been issued by Mr Ord, was discretionary and no bonus was due under it.The law
[26]A claim may be made under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Order 1994 for a breach of contract where that arises or is outstanding on termination. It also falls within the definition of wages under section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with a failure to pay wages due being unauthorised under section 13 of that Act. It appears to me that the matter is most aptly considered as one of breach of contract.[27]How a contract is to be interpreted was considered in HFD Glasgow 3 Ltd v Student Loans Co Ltd [2025] CSOH 101 which summarised the law in this regard.[28]For the avoidance of doubt I was satisfied that the claim fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction given the date of termination, early conciliation, and date of presentation of the Claim Form.Discussion
[29]As noted above the dispute between the parties was essentially whether or not Mr Ord had given the claimant a written contract of employment which in effect superseded the acceptance of offer. I have decided to prefer the evidence of the claimant that Mr Ord had not given him the written contract document that the respondent sought to rely on in its evidence. I consider that the claimant is a credible and reliable witness, and I have not accepted the evidence of Mr Ord where it conflicts with that of the claimant. I do so for the following reasons:(i) The claimant gave evidence clearly and consistently. That included that he had been on a higher salary than had been offered by the respondent. He was not cross examined over that, but Mr Ord in his evidence alleged that he had offered a higher salary than the claimant had been receiving.(ii) The offer was made orally, in hard copy and by email. It had a bonus scheme which had no mention that it was discretionary.(iii) Mr Ord accepted that at their first meeting to discuss the offer he said something to the effect that the claimant could earn a good amount of money if he brought in the work. He did not suggest that at that stage he had said that the bonus was discretionary.(iv) The written offer stated that if accepted full terms would be forwarded under separate cover. That implied either an email or letter doing so. No such letter or email was sent.(v) Mr Ord argued that he had given the claimant four documents, being one copy of the contract of employment document on which the respondent founds and each of the three other forms, on 16 October 2023. The three forms referred to however are dated by the claimant on 18 October 2023 which is more consistent with the claimant’s evidence that they had been given to him by a member of staff he identified as either Tracy or Atlanta on 18 October 2023 and that he had completed and returned them that day.(vi) Mr Ord stating in his evidence that he had given the claimant one copy of the contract is not consistent with the terms of the document the respondent sought to found on which states in the final clause that the employee should sign both copies of the contract and return one within 7 days.(vii) Mr Ord accepted that no attempt to “chase up” the unsigned contract was made despite that wording suggesting that the return of the contract timeously was required. Mr Ord’s evidence is not consistent with the written contract document in that regard.(viii) The contract document has a provision for signature by the employee, which is, perhaps unsurprisingly in the circumstances, blank. On the face of it however it appears to be the intention that it be signed by both parties, but was not.(ix) The claimant was clear that he had not received the contract and that if he had he would have queried the discretionary provision as to bonus as that had not been what had been presented to him earlier and which he had accepted. It was the bonus that was the incentive to accept a contract which had a lower annual salary than he was on. That evidence accorded with common sense.(x) Mr Ord in his evidence in chief accepted in answer to a somewhat leading question that he was the person who handled contracts of employment, but when asked why the claimant’s son, also an employee, had not received a written contract stated that he could not comment and did not 100% know. That appeared to me to be inconsistent evidence.(xi) The claimant stated in evidence that when he asked Mr Ord about bonus during the employment he replied to the effect that he would look into it, but did not revert to him. That is broadly consistent with the terms of Mr Ord’s email of 17 September 2025. Mr Ord in that email did not state in terms that no bonus was due as it was discretionary, or refer to the written contract of employment he said that he had issued. Again that appears to me to be inconsistent evidence on the part of Mr Ord, who accepted that he had sent the email referred to.(xii) None of the payments of bonus that were made were accompanied by any written or indeed other explanation as to how they had been calculated. The only detail was the amount and a figure within the relative payslip, as Mr Ord accepted.[30]Taking account of all of the evidence I heard I concluded that the offer of 6 October 2023 was sufficient to conclude a contract of employment with a bonus structure that was not discretionary, and that the respondent had not provided the claimant with their written contract of employment document as they argued. The claimant is accordingly entitled to bonus calculated on the basis of the scheme in the letter of offer dated 6 October 2023 and his acceptance of that offer by email.[31]The respondent had not paid any bonus for the work carried out by the claimant for 2025 in its entirety. I have therefore answered the first issue in the affirmative, subject to clarification of the remedy.[32]As to remedy there was no cross examination of the claimant’s evidence that the sum due to him was £6,000. The respondent provided no written evidence of the work carried out by the claimant, or the figures for revenue and profit related to it that were applicable for bonus issues. Mr Ord gave some evidence to the effect that the company had made little profit from some of the work carried out by the claimant, or had lost money on two contracts, but it was very general in nature, and the claimant challenged it in his cross examination. Mr Ord confirmed that he had concluded the contract in each case, and the issues related to it appeared to me from the evidence as ones related to how the conduct had been conducted by the respondent. The evidence given was so vague in this regard that I did not consider that there was a sufficient basis to make any finding in fact.[33]As it was the respondent which had framed the bonus scheme set out in the letter of 6 October 2023 and had the financial and other figures relevant to its calculation it appeared to me significant that it had not tendered any written evidence to challenge the claimant’s evidence that the sum he was due under the bonus scheme from the said letter was £6,000. I infer from the absence of that evidence, and the lack of cross examination on the amount that the claimant sought, that the revenues earned from work brought in by the claimant were no less than those required to earn bonus of the sum he sought.[34]Given the absence of challenge to the claimant’s evidence on the amount due I have accepted it, having regard also to the very limited evidence that the respondent provided which was not vouched in any way and I conclude that the sum to be awarded for the breach of contract is as the claimant sought. It is a sum that is gross of any statutory deductions.Conclusion
[35]I award the claimant the sum that he seeks as set out above. It is subject to any statutory deductions that may require to be made as set out in the Judgment.[36]The respondent may wish to consider reviewing its practices around issuing contracts of employment and bonus arrangements given the matters discussed above.