Mr B Marren v Craven District Council — 2019

The claimant brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996. He worked for Craven District Council and said that, between November 2017 and February 2019, he had been required to reduce claimed hours by 30 minutes on occasions when he worked without taking a break. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Ms Daglan, who had taken over as line manager after Mr Stoney left in about February 2018.

The tribunal preferred Ms Daglan's evidence about the arrangement reached in April 2018. It found that, where the claimant was lone working and unable to leave the premises, he was not to have 30 minutes deducted for a break and was to be paid for his full time on site, with two asterisks used on the time sheet to show those occasions. Where he was able to take a break, or had a break between bookings, he was not paid for that period because he was not entitled to be paid for it. The tribunal relied on the claimant's own time sheets, which showed both types of entries, and on the absence of any contemporaneous protest by him on the later time sheets.

For the period before April 2018, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had on occasions claimed for 30 minutes less than the time he was actually on the premises, but it could not find whether that was because he had been instructed to do so or because he in fact took a 30-minute break. Even if there had been an unauthorised deduction on those occasions, the last possible relevant payment date was April 2018, so any claim based on earlier deductions was very substantially out of time under section 23. The tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring a claim within time and that it was not reasonable to wait almost another 12 months after expiry of the time limit.

For the period from April 2018 onwards, the tribunal found that no deduction from wages had been made at all. The claimant submitted his own time sheets, claimed the hours he wanted to be paid for, and was paid for those hours. Because there were no unlawful deductions in that period, the complaint failed in full and was dismissed.