Written Representations For the v Written representations — 2020

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed from 14 May 2018 as a field based financial adviser and that his contract and staff handbook provided enhanced company sick pay only after six months' service, but excluded employees who were under disciplinary or grievance investigation. A letter of 29 November 2019 put the claimant under investigation for performance, compliance, and refusal to travel/BAU communication concerns, so by the end of November 2019 he fell within that exception.

The claimant was certified unfit for work from 2 December 2019 because of depression and remained unfit through December 2019 and January 2020. The tribunal found that his contractual entitlement for that period was statutory sick pay only, not basic remuneration under the company sick pay scheme. It calculated statutory sick pay for eight weeks at £94.95 per week, totalling £754.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had 13 days of accrued but untaken holiday at termination, worth £2,040 net. On that basis, the wages properly payable for December 2019 and January 2020 were £2,794 in total. The respondent had paid £3,033.05 on 27 December 2019, so that payment was an overpayment rather than an underpayment, and the tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to recover it. The tribunal therefore found that £239.05 remained due from the claimant to the respondent.

The tribunal rejected any wider claim for breach of contract or wrongful dismissal as not pleaded in this case, and it said it had no jurisdiction over the respondent's proposed counterclaim or the claimant's post-termination reference complaint. It noted only, by way of observation, that if a constructive wrongful dismissal claim had been brought there would have been an arguable case arising from the respondent's decision to investigate after receipt of the sick note, but no such claim was before the tribunal.