Mr W Gibson v Clearway Drainage Systems Limited — 2020

Mr Gibson was employed by Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd from 2 September 2019 until his dismissal on 23 January 2020 as a Reline Supervisor. He brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 arising from deductions said to relate to training course fees, damage to equipment, a vehicle valet, and unpaid on-call payments. A notice-pay/breach of contract issue was not determined because the respondent had paid the amount due before the hearing and the claimant accepted that issue no longer needed to be decided.

On the training course fee claim, the tribunal accepted that the full cost of the CITB course, £666, had been incurred and was not recoverable by the respondent. The claimant had signed a document on 2 September 2019 authorising deductions for course costs where a course could not be cancelled without incurring costs and requiring repayment if he left or was dismissed within the relevant period. The tribunal held that the deduction for course fees was therefore lawful.

The tribunal reached the same conclusion on the deductions for the Bung or Bypass stopper and the Gas Monitor. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the damage occurred in the course of work for which the claimant, as supervisor, was responsible, and preferred Mr McMullen's evidence on the cause of the incident. The claimant had signed wording authorising deductions for replacement parts or equipment due to damage caused by him, so those deductions were found to be lawful.

The £60 valet deduction was found to be unlawful. The tribunal held that the signed paperwork did not clearly authorise a deduction for a dirty vehicle, and that a dirty vehicle was not damage or loss within the wording relied on. It also found that the driver responsibilities document did not cover the facts relied on by the respondent. The claimant had not been given the opportunity to clean or arrange cleaning before the vehicle was returned, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay him £60 gross.

The on-call claim failed because the claimant did not prove that he had undertaken pre-arranged on-call work. There was no documentary support for his account, the rota produced by the respondent did not include his name, and the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that he had not been rostered for on-call. The judgment therefore allowed only the valet deduction claim and dismissed the remaining unlawful deduction claims.