Case 1405546/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lower & 43 others v First Hampshire and Dorset Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1405546/2020
- Decision date
- 24 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lower & 43 others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy judgment in the proceedings brought by Mr A Lower and 43 others against First Hampshire and Dorset Limited, heard by video conference on 23 February 2023 before Employment Judge Oliver. The tribunal dealt with the calculation of sums properly payable for unauthorised deduction from wages.
The tribunal held that the amounts properly payable to the claimants should be calculated by reference to two matters: the guaranteed minimum hours under their contracts of employment, and their contractual basic rate of pay. It said that unsocial hours payments and other premiums based on when work is done were not to be included in that calculation.
If the parties could not agree the final calculation of remedy for each claimant, the issue was to be determined at a further hearing, together with any other applications from the parties. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This is a judgment on remedy only. The tribunal directed that the amounts properly payable for unauthorised deduction from wages are to be calculated by reference to guaranteed minimum hours under the contracts of employment and the contractual basic rate of pay, excluding unsocial hours payments or other time-based premiums. The extract does not restate the underlying liability outcome. | Other | — | — |
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.