Miss C Gigli v The Nail and Beauty Zone Limited — 2024

Miss C Gigli worked for The Nail & Beauty Zone Ltd as a therapist from 19 December 2023 to 19 April 2024. Her contract provided for 40 hours per week at £12.50 per hour, a one-month notice period, and deductions including training costs and a no notice period penalty. She resigned orally on 19 April 2024, did not work her notice, and did not receive her final pay on 30 April 2024. No P45 or April payslip was issued at that stage, and a May 2024 payslip was not provided until 4 July 2024, after ACAS involvement. That payslip showed gross pay of £1,600 and deductions of £1,600.02, including £1,284.38 for hours not worked and £315.63 for training costs.

The tribunal held the £1,284.38 deduction for unworked notice was an unlawful deduction from wages under s.13 ERA 1996. Although the contract allowed deductions, the No Notice Clause was found to be unenforceable because it operated as a penalty rather than a genuine estimate of loss. The tribunal noted there was no evidence of the respondent's actual loss or of proper quantification, and it treated the clause as functioning as a deterrent to leaving without notice. In reaching that conclusion it referred to Dunlop, Giraud, Yorkshire Maintenance and Cleeve Link. The respondent was ordered to repay £1,284.38 gross.

On the pay statement complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide written itemised pay statements in April and May 2024 and failed to provide a P45 on termination. It recorded that compensation for a failure to provide payslips is limited to unnotified deductions in the preceding 13 weeks. The £1,284.38 notice deduction had already been dealt with under the unlawful deduction claim, so no further sum was due for that item. The £315.63 training-cost deduction had not been notified and was awarded under this head, producing a total award of £1,600.01.

The claimant's complaints about training costs, holiday pay and commission were dismissed upon withdrawal. The respondent's breach of contract counterclaim was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it: the claimant had not brought a breach of contract claim that would have engaged the tribunal's extended jurisdiction over a counterclaim.