Miss E Dackauskaite v The Wellness Practice Limited — 2023

The claim was presented as a claim for other payments comprising underpayments and repayment of money the claimant had paid to the respondent. At the hearing, the respondent conceded the £250 uniform payment and £477 training payment and said it had transferred £727 to the claimant. The tribunal rejected any offset or NMW argument in relation to those sums.

The tribunal separately dealt with the £60 DBS payment. It found there was no evidence the respondent had applied for the DBS check on the claimant's behalf, no DBS confirmation or invoice, and no explanation why the claimant could not have applied and paid directly. It held that requiring payment of that sum contravened s.15 ERA 1996 and ordered repayment of £60.

On remuneration, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case that paid training was orally agreed at £9.50 per hour. It said the 14/11/2022 induction letter recorded salary of £26,000 per annum based on a 45-hour week, and any change should have been confirmed in writing under s.4 ERA 1996. It found the claimant had done some work between 13/12/2022 and 30/12/2022, but the parties' evidence on hours was inconsistent and neither side was entirely frank and honest.

Because the precise hours were unclear, the tribunal used the contractual hours from the contract that gave a start date of 12/12/2022. Applying 124.5 hours at £11.11 per hour produced £1,383.20 gross, from which £256.50 already paid on the 15/1/2023 payslip was deducted, leaving £1,639.70 gross payable to the claimant. The claimant was to account to HMRC. The tribunal also observed compliance concerns and suggested the respondent consider an audit.