Mr J Tustin v Gary Wills Gas Services — 2026

Mr J Tustin was employed by Gary Wills Gas Services as an engineer from 30 October 2023 until 12 December 2024. The tribunal upheld his complaint that he should have received the national minimum wage instead of the apprentice rate. It was agreed that the contract did not meet the statutory apprenticeship requirements. The tribunal also found no common law apprenticeship: the contract was open-ended, permitted early termination and had work as its primary purpose. Training began in February 2024 and was incidental to the work. The gross wage shortfall was £11,064.41. The tribunal rejected use of the current minimum wage rate because the provisions concerning an HMRC notice of underpayment did not apply.

The tribunal upheld the complaint about training costs deducted from December 2024 pay. The employment contract required repayment within five years, while the training agreement used a period ending two years after training. The agreement also contained inconsistent terms about whether repayment applied on dismissal. Costs incurred before the documents were signed on 23 September 2024 could not be recovered under section 13(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found no genuine estimate of likely loss and applied the contra proferentem rule to resolve the inconsistencies against the respondent. There was no valid contractual provision or written agreement authorising the deduction. The formal judgment ordered repayment of £1,510.53 net, although the reasons give £1,510.63.

The notice pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found that Mr Tustin was dismissed without notice on 12 December 2024. The respondent's letter stating that it had decided to terminate his employment supported dismissal rather than resignation. His contract provided for one month's notice, so termination without notice breached the contract. He was entitled to £1,982.55 gross, payable after deductions for tax and national insurance. His unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment complaints were dismissed on withdrawal.

The complaint about the deduction for overtaken holiday was dismissed. The holiday year ran from May to April, with an annual contractual entitlement of 20 days excluding bank holidays. Mr Tustin had taken 18 days against an accrued entitlement of 12.4 days at termination. The tribunal calculated that £364 gross fell to be deducted for the excess 5.6 days and found the £335.70 net deduction was likely correct. A separate holiday pay claim succeeded for 1.67 days accrued during the notice period, worth £108.55 gross, subject to tax and national insurance.

The judgment recorded that the respondent had already made payments said to total £14,346.35 gross (£12,188.10 net). It required the respondent to recalculate the gross and net sums owed in light of the findings and make any additional payments required. It did not fix an aggregate award or a final outstanding balance.