Ms S Smith v Ineos Acetyls UK Limited — 2023

Ms S Smith brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages after Ineos Acetyls UK Limited did not pay her the 2021 Annual Cash Bonus on 29 April 2022. The claimant had worked for BP, transferred to the respondent under TUPE on 1 January 2021, and resigned in February 2022 with an effective termination date of 4 May 2022. The tribunal found that she had received annual cash bonuses in earlier years and resigned believing she would receive the 2021 bonus.

The tribunal accepted that the BP bonus policy described the bonus as discretionary, but found that once a bonus was declared it became payable under the terms then applicable. It held that BP had not previously exercised any discretion to withhold bonus payments from employees who had given notice, and that the policy’s eligibility criteria did not include such an exclusion. The tribunal relied on section 13 and section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the reasoning in Farrell Matthews & Weir v Hansen.

The respondent argued that new 2022 bonus scheme rules applied to payment of the 2021 bonus and excluded employees who had resigned or were under notice. The tribunal rejected that argument. It found that the consultation documents and employee communications referred to a protected period and to 2021 annual bonus payments being made on the bonus framework in place during that period, and that the 2022 scheme changes applied only to the 2022 performance year onwards. The tribunal therefore found that the 2021 bonus remained payable under the BP policy and did not fall within the new exclusion.

The tribunal held that the claimant met the criteria for payment and that withholding the bonus was an unauthorised deduction from wages. The respondent did not dispute that, if the claim succeeded, the remedy figure was £5,554.08 gross, and the tribunal ordered payment of that sum.