EAT Unlawful Deduction From Wages – Appeal
Deduction from wages. Flexi-hours scheme. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent. The Respondent operated a flexi-hours scheme whereby the Claimant was entitled to take time off in respect of extra hours already worked. The contract of employment and the employees’ handbook were silent on the effect on the treatment of flexi-hours when an employee left for any reason. The Respondent made the Claimant redundant. The Respondent offered to make payment to the Claimant in respect of a restricted number of hours. The Claimant refused, arguing that he was entitled to be paid at an hourly rate for all flexi-hours. The Employment Tribunal found in favour of the Claimant, finding that the Claimant should not have to work hours for which he would not be paid.
Held: Appeal allowed. There was no express term that payment in money would be paid for flexi hours worked. There was no need to imply such a term. The ET erred in law by doing so.
Cross Appeal
Unfair dismissal. The Claimant argued in a cross-appeal that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy.
Held: The ET made no error in law in deciding that the employer carried out a fair procedure; that the reason for dismissal was redundancy and that selecting the Claimant was fair. Cross appeal refused.
Ladt Stacey
[2013] UKEAT 0015 – 13 – 1707
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522337
