Mr A Cridge v The Christmas Decorators (Franchising) Ltd — 2024

The tribunal found that Mr A Cridge and the respondent had agreed a bonus structure with two parts: a company performance element based on 30% like-for-like growth, and a KPI element, each capable of being paid pro rata. It accepted the claimant’s evidence, supported by Ms Cole, that the respondent did not provide the information needed to complete the KPI review and that Mr Gateson did not tell him the bonus would not be paid. The tribunal rejected the respondent’s case that there was a term allowing it to withhold all bonus if the full growth target or KPI target was not achieved, and it found the respondent’s evidence and documents on the KPI scoring to be inconsistent.

On the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal held that the bonus claim could be brought under s13 ERA 1996 and, if necessary, would also have been in time as a breach of contract claim. It found that the respondent acted capriciously in failing to pay the 2021/22 KPI bonus, the 2022/23 company performance bonus, and the 2022/23 KPI bonus. The reasons record awards of £10,000 for the 2021/22 KPI bonus, £5,000 for the 2022/23 company performance element, and £10,000 for the 2022/23 KPI element, making £25,000 gross in total.

On the equal pay claim, the respondent accepted like work and the only issue was the material factor defence. The tribunal held that the respondent established a material factor not tainted by sex, relying mainly on the geographical location of the comparator and the timing of her recruitment during the first lockdown. It also considered the interim managing director’s recruitment terms and the length of service and experience point, but concluded that the defence succeeded. The equal pay claim was dismissed.