Case 1601068/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Orme v CGMD Limited t/a Community Care Services — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601068/2021
- Decision date
- 18 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butcher Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Orme
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss H Orme worked for CGMD Limited t/a Community Care Services between 12 and 18 July 2021 and said she was entitled to £367.50 for hours worked, house calls and training. She received £191.75 and brought an unlawful deduction from wages claim for the unpaid balance of £175.75. The respondent accepted the earnings figures but said nothing remained outstanding because it had incurred training costs of £354.38 and other costs after her resignation, and it relied on a repayment term in its policies and procedures.
The tribunal heard evidence from Miss Orme and Mr Durbin and found that the policies and procedures sent on 18 May 2021 were separate from the contract of employment, which was not signed until 12 July 2021. It accepted Miss Orme's evidence that on 9 July 2021 Laura Durbin told her the repayment provision did not apply to the training she had already completed because her contract had not yet been signed. The tribunal found there was no evidence that a breakdown of training costs had been provided or that consent to repayment had been sought or obtained in advance.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's shift on 17 July 2021 was sufficiently distressing that she resigned as a result, and it found no evidence of formal complaints about her work. It accepted that she had a reasonable expectation of payment for work undertaken and held that the respondent's deduction was not authorised within s.13 ERA. It therefore ordered the respondent to pay £175.75 gross, with the claimant to account for NI and tax. It noted the respondent's position on agency-worker costs, but there was no evidence before the tribunal to establish that figure and those matters were said to be the subject of civil proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the full amount due. It found no prior consent to repayment of training costs before the contract of employment was signed; the respondent's asserted agency-worker costs were said to be the subject of civil proceedings and were not proved before the tribunal. | Upheld | — | £176 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £176
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act
- s.14 Employment Rights Act
- s.23 Employment Rights Act
- s.27 Employment Rights Act
- Sunderland Polytechnic v Evans [1993] IRLR 196
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.