Petronela Proteasa (Solicitor), Nucleus Legal Advice Centre v Thomas Fitch, Respondent’s Chief Executive — 2022

Ms Richards brought a single claim for unlawful deduction from wages, alleging that the Respondent had deducted 50% of her contractual pay from 1 November 2021. The deduction was admitted; the issue was whether it was authorised by her contract of employment. The tribunal held that it was not, and found the claim well founded.

The tribunal construed the contractual clause about changes to working hours as governing the working pattern, not a unilateral reduction in the total number of hours or in pay. It noted that the clause said permanent changes could only be introduced after full consultation, and found that no such consultation had taken place: the only consultation had been about redundancy. The tribunal also said that, where there was ambiguity, the clauses should be interpreted in favour of the employee.

The Respondent also relied on the short time working clause. The tribunal accepted the claimant's submission that this should be read consistently with section 147 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and found that the clause was directed to temporary short-time working or lay-off, not a continuing reduction lasting a year. It also found that the particular reduction in hours did not fit the clause because Ms Richards' hours were not reduced to the point that she would be entitled to a redundancy payment.

For remedy, the tribunal calculated the loss from 1 November 2021 to the hearing date as one week at £625.67 and one year at £16,267.50, producing a gross award of £16,893.17. It rejected the request for a 25% uplift for alleged ACAS Code non-compliance, finding that the Respondent's response was not unreasonably deficient in the circumstances of a small charity under significant financial and staffing pressure.