Case 2202128/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr U Zilik, Trade Union Official For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202128/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr U Zilik, Trade Union Official For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Hetherington was employed by ETZ Technologies Limited from 2 January 2018 and became Managing Director on 28 November 2018 under a contract that provided a salary of £65,000, a one-month notice period and a clause requiring any variation to be in writing and signed. The dispute concerned whether a later change in role and salary was agreed at a meeting on 20 March 2019 with Paul Andersen, after which the Respondent said the Claimant became Trainee Finance Manager on reduced pay.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was told there would be a change in role and that he ceased to be Managing Director, and it accepted that a demotion took place. It found, however, that the 20 March 2019 contract was not presented to him at that meeting, that it was never signed, and that there was no written agreement or consent to reduce his salary from £65,000. The tribunal treated the evidence as showing that the Respondent intended to reduce pay first to £50,000 and then to £45,000, but that intention was not matched by an effective contractual variation.
The tribunal rejected the Respondent's case that the Claimant had affirmed the revised terms by continuing in employment. It held that the period between the 20 March 2019 meeting and the redundancy dismissal on 10 April 2019 was too short for affirmation to apply, particularly as part of that period the Claimant was absent through illness and the first reduced payslip would have fallen after the end of employment. It also relied on the absence of notice under the existing contract and the clause requiring signed variation as factors against any agreed change.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the wages properly payable remained those under the 28 November 2018 contract for the period from 1 April 2019 to 10 April 2019 and the notice period. It calculated an unauthorised deduction from wages of £2,306.80 and a pension contribution shortfall of £66.31, then deducted an overpayment of employer pension contributions of £285.99. The net sum ordered to be paid was £2,087.12.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the s.13 ERA claim for underpaid wages and the consequential shortfall in employer pension contributions. The alternative breach of contract issue was raised in the reasons but was not separately determined. | Upheld | — | £2,087 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,087
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.