Case 1306661/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Chipman v Birmingham City Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306661/2020
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Chipman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was dismissed. No monetary award was made in respect of that complaint in the judgment.
The tribunal found that the respondent had breached section 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by failing to provide the claimant with a written statement of change to his employment particulars from 1 January 2018 onwards in relation to an honorarium payment.
Under sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined the particulars that should have been included in the statement. Those particulars recorded that, from 1 January 2018, the claimant was to receive an honorarium of £150 per calendar month for additional duties at the Redfern Road depot, with the arrangement to continue, be reviewed, or be terminated in accordance with the respondent's Honoraria policy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unlawful deductions from wages does not succeed and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of section 4 Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to provide a written statement of change to employment particulars concerning an honorarium payment. This is classified as other because it is not separately represented in the locked claim_type taxonomy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 4 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 11 and 12 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.