Mr D. Wilson, Lay Representative For the v Mr Z. Cheng, Director 1st respondent/2nd respondent — 2020

The tribunal found that Mr Putman was employed from 1 February 2016 on a contract describing him as a Sales Advisor, and that his later work also included estate management and supervisory duties. It found that the bonus payments made in 2017 and 2018 were discretionary and that there was no contractual entitlement or established custom and practice to require further bonus payments. On the wages claim, the tribunal held there was no deduction for November 2020 because the amount paid exceeded the monthly entitlement, but there was an unlawful deduction for December 2020 salary because he remained on furlough until 31 December 2020 and was owed 1,400 gross for that month.

The tribunal rejected the earlier arrears and bonus aspects of the wage claim, including because the complaint about deductions for the 2019/2020 tax years and up to October 2020 was out of time and, on the evidence, no bonus entitlement had been shown. It also held that from January to May 2021 Mr Putman was not ready, willing and able to work, so no wages were due for that period. Holiday pay was rejected for 1 January to 31 March 2021 because the holiday year ran from 1 April to 31 March and there was no written permission to carry leave forward, but holiday pay was accepted for 1 April to 31 May 2021.

On pay statements and employment particulars, the tribunal found that Onriver did not provide itemised pay statements for the January to May 2021 period and made a declaration under section 12(3) only in relation to the holiday pay due for April and May 2021; it did not award additional compensation at this stage. It also found that the claimant had not been given updated particulars covering the bonus provision, season ticket allowance, pension entitlement and the increase to 40 hours per week, so the section 1 and section 4 ERA 1996 claim and the related section 38 EA 2002 claim succeeded. A remedy hearing was listed for 28 October 2022 to determine the amounts payable on the successful claims.

The direct disability discrimination and harassment related to disability claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that Mr Putman had not shown dyslexia amounted to a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times because there was no adequate evidence of a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It also found the respondents did not have actual or constructive knowledge, rejected the alleged remarks and other events as not proved or not related to disability, and held in any event that the discrimination complaints were out of time and should not be extended.

The respondents' counterclaim for repayment of alleged loans was dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. The tribunal said the original proceedings had not been brought as a breach of contract claim for the purposes of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994.