The employer had withheld ten per cent of the claimant’s wages, Employees worked in teams cleaning windows in office blocks. The team agreed how the fee for the block would be divided. The employer reduced its fees to customers, and accordingly the sums paid to the employees. It now appealed a finding of an unlawful deduction, saying that it had been prevented from calling cetain evidence.
Held: There had been no significant dispute as to the facts, but the tribunal could not say that it evidence would not have been of assistance, and the matter was remitted ccordingly. Parliament did not limit the question of deductions to wages contractually ascertained, but extended it to all sums properly payable, and ‘on the present findings the system with which this case is concerned falls squarely within the statutory purpose and comfortably within the statutory language. ‘
Judges:
Beldam LJ, Morritt LJ, Sedley LJ
Citations:
[1999] EWCA Civ 1112, [2000] IRLR 27
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 27(1)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Devonald v Rosser 1906
An employer’s failure to provide a reasonable amount of work, barring force majeure, is a breach of the contract of employment. . .
Cited – Sagar v Ridehalgh 1931
A contractually agreed reduction for poor workmanship is not to be treated as an unlawful deduction from wages. . .
Cited – Bruce and Others v Wiggins Teape (Stationery) Ltd EAT 13-May-1994
Employees appealed against decisions that their employer had not made unlawful deductions from their wages. The company had unilaterally reduced the rate of overtime pay.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
Mummery J P said: ‘the reason why the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146027