Miss E Martins v Pure Skin Beauty Ltd — 2019

The tribunal heard the claim at Croydon on 21 October 2019 before Employment Judge Wright. The respondent asked for written reasons and sought leave to amend its response to add a counterclaim, but that application was refused. The judge recorded that the respondent had already been on notice of the possible counterclaim, had chosen not to pursue it in the response, and that allowing it at that stage would not be consistent with the overriding objective or proportionate.

On the monetary claims, the tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for £250 deducted from her final salary for the cost of training. The judge found there was no clear contractual term telling the claimant that the cost of the course could be recovered if she left within a certain period, and noted that the respondent had benefited from her use of the training for four months before her departure. The tribunal also upheld the claimant's £5 expense claim for gloves, on the basis that the respondent had agreed she could incur the expense and be reimbursed.

The claimant's £511.82 bonus claim was dismissed. The tribunal found the bonus was not contractual and was therefore discretionary, and that the claimant had left without giving notice when she was still in her probationary period. In those circumstances, the respondent was entitled to decide not to pay the bonus. The claimant's holiday pay claim succeeded in part: although she claimed £620, the tribunal found she had worked seven weeks of the holiday year, calculated a pro-rata entitlement of 20 hours, and awarded £215.20.

The total gross sum ordered was £470.20, and the claimant was directed to account to HMRC.