UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Implied term/variation/construction of term
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
In respect of the two grounds of appeal brought by the Appellant employer:
Ground 1
Appeal allowed: the Tribunal had erred in its approach to a claim for unauthorised deduction of wages arising from non-payment of a contractual car allowance. In upholding that claim, the Tribunal had failed to: (1) consider the significance of an express term requiring that the car in question be less than 3 years old; (2) address whether and, if so, by what means, that term had been varied so as to remove the relevant requirement, or it was inequitable for the Appellant to enforce it; and (3) make all prior necessary findings of fact.
Ground 2
Ground 2 comprised two parts:
(a) Appeal dismissed: the Tribunal had not erred in determining the Respondent’s claim for wrongful dismissal, notwithstanding its earlier erroneous statement that his claim had been limited to one for unauthorised deduction of wages. At all material times, both parties and the Tribunal had been aware that a claim for wrongful dismissal and an award of notice moneys was being pursued by the Respondent and both parties had made submissions to the Tribunal at the full merits hearing on that basis. There being no appeal from the Tribunal’s substantive findings in that claim, those findings stand.
(b) Appeal allowed: the Tribunal had erred in determining that the Appellant’s employer’s contract claim could not proceed on the basis that the Respondent’s claim had been limited to one for unauthorised deduction of wages. First, the Claimant’s claim had not in fact been so limited (see paragraph (a) above). In any event, the Appellant’s entitlement to bring an employer’s contract claim had arisen when the Respondent had brought proceedings in respect of a claim under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and would have been unaffected by any subsequent abandonment or withdrawal of that claim by the Respondent.
Disposal
The Respondent’s claim for unauthorised deduction of his car allowance, together with the Appellant’s employer’s contract claim, would be remitted for determination by a freshly constituted tribunal, in accordance with the EAT’s judgment. If, as had been indicated to the EAT, the Appellant no longer wishes to pursue its employer’s contract claim before a tribunal, it should make the appropriate application to the Tribunal. If that claim is to be pursued before the Tribunal, all necessary prior directions will need to be given, enabling clear identification of the issues to be determined at the Full Merits Hearing. The relevance to the employer’s contract claim of the Tribunal’s undisturbed findings in respect of the claim for wrongful dismissal will be a matter for the Tribunal (or any court) seised of the former claim to consider.
Citations:
[2019] UKEAT 0252 – 18 – 2805
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.639329