BS Eaton Ltd

Case Summary

Mr Hughes claimed unlawful deductions from his wages during a lay off period from April to August 2020 and a suspension period, when he was paid reduced lay off pay rather than full wages. The tribunal found that no implied term of contract permitted the respondent to lay off the claimant, and therefore the deductions from 22 June to 30 August 2020 were unlawful. The respondent was ordered to pay £4,755.58 in respect of the unlawfully deducted wages.

The tribunal found that there was no valid implied term of contract, whether by custom and practice or otherwise, that permitted the respondent to pay the claimant lay off pay rather than his full wage. The claimant was entitled to full pay during the lay off and suspension periods as the respondent failed to establish a contractual right to reduce his wages.

• •Whether unlawful deduction from wages occurred during lay off and suspension periods
• •Whether implied term of contract permitted lay off pay
• •Whether lay off term implied by custom and practice
• •Whether suspension was subject to lay off provisions
• •Whether respondent notified claimant of deduction
• •Appropriate sums to award for unlawful deduction

Case No: 1309098/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr A Hughes Respondent: Bs Eaton Limited Heard at: Midlands West Employment Tribunal (CVP) On: 25 th November 2022 Before: Employment Judge A Smith Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr C Baran, Counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. The respondent has made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages from 22 nd June 2020 until 30 th August 2020 and is ordered to pay to the claimant the gross sum of £4,755.58 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. REASONS Claims and Issues 1. The claimant brought an ET1 dated 14 th September 2020 and ticked the box for arrears of pay. In the claim form he explained that he was laid off at £72 per day. Further he explained that he was suspended on 6 th May on the same rate. He expressed that he Case No: 1309098/2020 did not believe lay off pay was in his contract and that suspension should have been on full pay. He provided a breakdown of the figures. 2. The respondent denied the claim in the ET3. The allege that the right to lay off was an implied term of the contract. They relied on implication by custom and practice. They also asserted that he was notified of the layoff period. They explained that the clamant was suspended because of an unpleasant exchange and a mediator was arranged, but the claimant eventually unreasonably withdrew. 3. At the start of the hearing, I had seen correspondence from the parties objecting to documents in the bundle and documents that weren’t in the bundle. Having discussed matters with the parties, those disputes had fallen away, and I needed not make any decisions about the documents before me. 4. The issues were therefore agreed with the parties to be as follows: 4.1. In paying the claimant lay off pay from 6th April 2020 to 30th August 2020, was there a deduction fro…