Case 2207629/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Bea Barbara Roman v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207629/2022
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bea Barbara Roman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim alleging unauthorised deductions from wages relating to amounts shown on payslips dated 1 August 2022, 1 September 2022, and 30 September 2022. She accepted at the hearing that sums recovered as overpayments were overpayments, but said the recovery had been done without adequate notification or explanation.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been overpaid while on maternity leave because of administrative errors after changes to her contract and payroll arrangements. It found that the £874.25 deduction in August 2022 and the £499 recovery in September 2022 were made for the purpose of reimbursing overpayments of wages, so section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply by reason of section 14(1)(a).
For the 30 September 2022 payslip, the tribunal found that the itemised deduction of 30 basic hours was matched by 30 hours of holiday pay and was a reclassification rather than an actual deduction. The tribunal concluded that the respondent had not made any unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the challenged payments were either recovery of wage overpayments or not actual deductions, and dismissed the unauthorised deductions claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 14(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 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.