EAT UNAUTHORISED DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
Unauthorised deduction from wages – section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 – zero hours’ contract
The Claimant was an employee of the Respondent, working shifts around her college commitments pursuant to a zero hours’ contract. On 6 March 2016, the Respondent suspended the Claimant pending a disciplinary investigation; it accepted before the ET that it had been required to pay her at her normal average weekly rate for the duration of the disciplinary suspension but it had failed to do so. The period of the disciplinary suspension continued until 13 December 2016, with no offers of shifts being made to the Claimant during this period. Meanwhile, the Respondent failed to progress the disciplinary process and matters were left in abeyance until 13 December, when further shifts were offered to the Claimant. In the meantime, on 22 August 2016, the Claimant had accepted other employment; she did not disclose this fact to the Respondent. The ET found that the Claimant had declined the offer of shifts for the Respondent in December 2016 as she no longer wished to work for it. Prior to that point, however, the Respondent had not made any offer of shifts to the Claimant because of the disciplinary suspension and she had therefore been entitled to be paid (at her normal average rate) for that period.
The Respondent appealed, contending once the Claimant obtained work with another employer, there were no sums ‘properly payable’ to her for the purposes of section 13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996, alternatively her failure to disclose her other employment meant she should not have been entitled to wages from the Respondent after 22 August 2016.
Held: dismissing the appeal.
As the Respondent accepted, under her contract of employment, the Clamant was entitled to accept other employment and was under no obligation to notify the Respondent of this. It further accepted that it was unable to say whether the Claimant would or would not have accepted shifts offered prior to 13 December 2016 because she had been offered none due to the disciplinary suspension. The Respondent could not point to any conduct on the part of the Claimant that would have entitled it to summarily dismiss her (had it been aware of that conduct at the relevant time); she had thus remained entitled to be paid during the period of disciplinary suspension.
Citations:
[2018] UKEAT 0240 – 17 – 0203
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618915