Miss C Briscoe v Careshield Limited — 2022

The claimant, Miss C Briscoe, brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages concerning commission payments totalling £3,240 which she said should have been included in her final salary payment. The tribunal recorded that the issue was whether Condition 11 of the respondent’s commission scheme applied, or whether it had been varied by later conversations.

The claimant had signed the commission scheme on 11 June 2020. Condition 11 stated that if employees left the company for any reason, all entitlement to commission or bonus payments would be withdrawn immediately. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a conversation with her then line manager, Chris Davies, before signing the scheme, in which he told her that if she left on good terms she would receive her commission. However, the tribunal held that this did not vary the signed written scheme, and in any event the alleged promise was too vague and uncertain to amount to a binding contractual term.

The tribunal also found that a conversation took place on 4 November 2020 between the claimant and Emma Sweetlove. It found strong evidence that the parties intended to vary Condition 11, but the evidence was inconsistent as to what had actually been agreed. The tribunal considered several possible formulations of the alleged variation, but found it unclear whether commission was to be paid when learners were processed, signed up, or paid for, and by what date. It noted the absence of any written variation or contemporaneous record, and found that the discussion was too vague and uncertain to amount to a contractual promise.

Because Condition 11 was not effectively varied, the tribunal held that the claimant had been paid commission in accordance with the commission scheme and that no unlawful deduction from wages had been made. The claim was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.