Claimant v Building Services Recruit Ltd — 2021

The claimant attended the hearing in person; the respondent did not attend, but emailed that morning asking for a rescheduling after saying it had tried to log in at 10am. The tribunal refused that request, took the respondent's ET3 into account, and preferred the claimant's evidence on the terms of employment and payment. The claimant relied on messages and the respondent's Candidate Starter Pack, which the tribunal treated as the only document setting out the terms of employment.

The tribunal found that the claimant started work on 21 April 2021, assigned to Duck Electrical, and that the agreed rate in the Starter Pack was £19 per hour for an electrician, not £14 per hour as an electrician's mate. It found there was no term allowing the respondent to vary the rate unilaterally or to make deductions for any reason. On the evidence accepted by the tribunal, the claimant worked 64 hours over 9 days, should have been paid £1,216 gross, and had in fact been paid £896, leaving a shortfall of £320 before tax and NI.

The respondent said it had reduced the rate because its customer was not satisfied with the claimant's work and had only paid the respondent's invoice at the mate rate. The tribunal said it had not seen the contract between the respondent and its customer, but it had seen the terms between the respondent and the claimant and concluded there was no legal basis for changing the claimant's agreed rate. It held that the non-payment of the full agreed rate amounted to a deduction for which there was no express permission or right reserved in the claimant's terms of employment.

The claim was therefore well founded under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the tribunal awarded the claimant £320 forthwith. The judgment recorded that the claim succeeded.