Case 2409763/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stewart Taylor Mr Roy Addicottt Mr John Beckerton Mr David Murphy v British Gas Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409763/2020
- Decision date
- 16 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stewart Taylor Mr Roy Addicottt Mr John Beckerton Mr David Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were Heating Sales Advisors employed on 12-hour part-time contracts. In 2015, following changes connected with Financial Conduct Authority limits on commission, the respondent treated the claimants as though they were on 13.5-hour part-time contracts. This increased their basic pay and other benefits, but also increased their commission thresholds. The tribunal found that the 12-hour contracts had been overlooked and that the claimants were not contractually varied onto 13.5-hour contracts.
On the part-time worker complaint, the tribunal considered the overall remuneration package rather than only the commission threshold. It found there was no overall detriment because the increased basic pay and related benefits outweighed any potential commission disadvantage. It also found the alleged treatment was not because of part-time status, but arose from the respondent's error about the claimants' contractual hours.
On unlawful deductions, the tribunal found the claimants did not have a legal entitlement to commission at a particular rate, because the contract and the 2015 pay and conditions document made commission discretionary. It also found that Mr Taylor and Mr Beckerton were not entitled to continue receiving the higher base salary calculated on 13.5 hours, because their contractual entitlement was to pay pro-rated to 12 hours. Mr Murphy's breach of contract claim failed for the same reason: he had no contractual right to commission at a specific rate, and in any event the respondent would have been able to rely on set-off for the enhanced basic pay and other payments he had received.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The tribunal found the complaint of less favourable treatment by reason of part-time worker status contrary to regulation 5 of the Part-Time Worker (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was not well founded for all four claimants. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded for all four claimants. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This complaint was brought only by Mr Murphy. The tribunal found it was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- regulation 5 Part-Time Worker (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- Hendrickson Europe Ltd v Pipe four questions
- Carl v University of Sheffield actual comparator requirement
- Matthews v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority overall less favourable treatment
- Engel v Ministry of Justice
- McMenemy v Capita Business Services Ltd
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church legal entitlement to wages
- Coors Brewers Ltd v Adcock quantification of wages claims
- Yemm v British Steel Plc error of computation
- section 23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year backstop
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Capek v Lincolnshire County Council
- Asif v Key People Ltd
- Ridge v HM Land Registry equitable set-off
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.